Angela Eagle MP: speeches

I was hoping to deal with a lot of these issues, but I want to leave the hon. Member for Waveney Valley enough time to say a few things. I have many more things to say, so perhaps we can resume this debate in the future.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher, in this debate on a matter that has affected a great many of our constituents and all Members who are struggling through the London heat. I am grateful to Members for their valuable contributions. I thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for securing the debate. I hope to give all Members some confidence that we are making progress in what is an extremely complicated and interconnected problem. It is not only interconnected in this country; it requires action locally, nationally and internationally, and it cannot be solved easily or quickly. Despite some of the issues and considerable challenges—they are considerable—that hon. Members have pointed out in their contributions, I want to cheer people up slightly with the statement that the Nature Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), made on the Floor of the House yesterday. She pointed out that before the Paris agreement, the world was on track for 4% of warming, but we have now got it down to 2.5. That is still way too high, but I use that example because I want to inject a little bit of confidence that if we can get our processes right—internationally as well as nationally—we can do something about this. Such issues are so complex and interrelated that it is easy for people to think that the problem is too great and we cannot possibly deal with it, and then be despairing about it, so I wanted to inject that little bit of optimism. We have made progress, and we have to make sure that we carry on making progress. The Government recognise that extreme heat fuelled by climate change is no longer a rare seasonal event to be managed with temporary emergency measures; it is a chronic, recurring, structural risk to our economy, public health and national security. Every hon. Member who has contributed today has recognised that point. Our response to extreme heat is built on a combination of tried and tested plans and capabilities that have been refined over time, and also longer-term programmes to meet the specific challenges of climate change. Evidence suggests that without action, the physical impacts of climate change could cost England’s economy between 1.1% and 3.3% of GDP by 2050, and at least 7.4% by the end of the century. We are taking action now in recognition that it is economically beneficial to invest early to reduce emissions. As Nicholas Stern said many years ago, the more money spent on investing to prevent, the cheaper it is to deal with the consequences. The Government have put clean energy and climate action at the heart of their agenda, which includes showing global leadership by setting a world-leading target to reduce emissions by at least 81% by 2035. Cutting emissions remains our first line of defence, but it is harder when the political consensus that existed about climate action has broken down globally and in this country. There are still people who claim that climate change does not exist and that we are spending a load of money for no particular reason, when we know that scientists are universally agreed that the increase in heat and changes in climate that we are talking about have been caused by human effects on our planet’s climate. The sooner that everybody recognises that globally, the easier it will be for the great ingenuity of the human race—when it is in a good mood—to deal with the consequences of what was done in the past with industrialisation. We are taking action as well as mitigation to prepare the UK for the impacts of climate change. Under the Climate Change Act 2008, we maintain a robust climate change risk assessment, and through the national adaptation programme, DEFRA co-ordinates a rigorous cross-Government response to ensure that our sectors remain resilient.

Today, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has laid statutory instruments to designate three bodies engaged in foreign power threat activity under the National Security (State Threats) Act 2026. They are the Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right, who have publicly claimed seven attacks at UK locations linked to Jewish and Israeli communities, and Persian language media; and Iran’s IRGC; and Russia’s GRU Volunteer Corps. Designation will make it an offence to support, assist or obtain benefits from any of these organisations.

I extend my sincere condolences to the family following the tragic death of Hannah. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that in line with legal confidentiality obligations, I can neither confirm nor deny whether a request for mutual legal assistance has been made or received. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on an investigation in another jurisdiction. I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, if that is what he wishes.

The banking hubs are at an early stage of their development. They are a good development. At the moment, they are less sophisticated in the services that they can offer. We have to work with banks, which are—because most of their customers wish it—going online and leaving the high street. That does leave in a more vulnerable situation people who perhaps are more vulnerable to being scammed online. In our work with the banks, we have to try to make the case that they need to have special relationships and ways of dealing with those who are neurodiverse or who may be easier, in some ways, to fool. In my experience, almost anyone can become a victim of this kind of fraud if they get caught at a vulnerable moment or when they are upset about something, so we have to deal with education in a much more holistic way, rather than just categorising people. But I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. Using data from Report Fraud, we are improving our ability to identify emerging fraud trends and local fraud hotspots, which enables us to work with police forces and community partners to deliver targeted interventions where we see they are needed most. We are just beginning to get to the stage at which we can start spotting these kinds of trends and trying to prevent them, rather than trying to pick up the pieces after a fraud has happened. It is equally important to co-ordinate the fraud protect networks, for which City of London police has responsibility. Bringing together local, regional and national law enforcement, the network helps to reduce the threat of fraud and repeat victimisation through consistent prevention messaging, practical safeguarding advice and targeted public engagement. I think that as we see more of these issues developing, we will be able to see what the trends are and be more preventive and ahead of the trends before they cause damage. An estimated 70% of fraud has an international element: it knows no borders. As part of our effort to counter that, the UK sponsored the UN Office on Drugs and Crime and Interpol global fraud summit in March. That ministerial summit brought together over 1,000 attendees across 115 Governments, over 40 Ministers and senior law enforcement, and over 500 private sector companies, including big tech, with the aim of strengthening international co-operation, raising global standards and agreeing co-ordinated, multi-sector action plans to deal with fraud. We also want to do what we can to try to shut down some of the scam centres that we know are appearing in particular areas of the world; where we can, we will sign memorandums of understanding with countries that may have a particular issue that we see impinging on our citizens. The international part is extremely important. As the hon. Member for Yeovil mentioned in his speech, working with the telecoms companies and the big tech companies is equally important. I assure him that our new fraud strategy is particularly aimed at being able to ensure that we bring these different strands together and bear down on the current levels of fraud, which are completely unacceptable. Question put and agreed to.

We need to look at where the issues are, where the loopholes are and where people are being exploited. We need to see what we can do, both as law enforcers and as regulators, to close those loopholes. I am not going to say yes immediately to the hon. Gentleman’s question, not least because it is not directly in my bivouac, but he can rest assured that we will look at the trends and see how we can harden the target, if I might put it that way. A whole range of individuals can be scammed and fall for very sophisticated frauds without realising—and by the time they do realise, it is too late. Obviously the private sector, specifically the banking sector, has an important part to play with the warnings that it puts on its electronic banking systems. We need to do an enormous amount of co-operative work in all this, to ensure that our online crime centre can pick up and collaborate with all parts of the system that is there to try to protect people. As I said earlier, “Stop! Think Fraud” is an important part of that. If something looks too good to be true online, it almost certainly is. We have to get that education out there, be it through influencers or other types of people, to the people who are potential victims in this area.

It is a great pleasure to be in this Chamber with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) on securing the debate. I also thank him for how he has set out some of the very difficult problems that all our constituents have faced as technology has provided the wherewithal to industrialise frauds and scams, often from abroad. There is now no way to get a handle on what they are doing without involving ourselves in international co-operation. As technologies advance, the threat of these kinds of activities evolves, and we have to do what we can to try to keep pace with them and hopefully get ahead, so that we can do some prevention rather than trying to pick up the pieces after terrible things have happened. At this juncture, I express my empathy and sympathy with the hon. Member’s constituents, some of whom he has mentioned today, including Christopher, who was the subject of a romance fraud, and Jason, who was subjected to fraudulent behaviour and the temptation of wealth creation that was not really there. One thing that has struck me very strongly since I took up this post three weeks ago, and from my own constituency caseload over many years, is how invidious and difficult it is for the victims of these kinds of behaviours to admit that they have fallen into a trap, because many of them feel a bit silly and embarrassed and do not know where to turn to try to get redress. The way that redress has worked in this country in the past has not kept pace with the industrialisation of fraud, its international aspect and its sophistication. It has been difficult, therefore, as the hon. Member for Yeovil recounted, for systems to keep up. People feel not only embarrassed, worried and a bit shameful that they have fallen into those traps, according to my constituency caseload, but they do not find it easy to get redress. I congratulate the hon. Member on his constituency work, and the way he has used the systems that we are putting in place to ensure that the money can be refunded in many cases, though obviously not all. My esteemed colleague Lord Hanson leads on this area of work. Despite all the innovations in our constitution since I have been in this House, we do not allow Lords to speak in Commons debates, thank goodness. I am here, however, and more than happy to talk to Lord Hanson about some of these issues. Before I come to the points raised, I want to make some simple but important ones of my own. Fraud is high volume and high harm, for the reasons the hon. Member for Yeovil outlined. Hon. Members will know that is true from their experience in advice surgeries. It deprives law-abiding people of their hard-earned money; it hits businesses with sometimes crippling losses; it destroys lives and livelihoods; it destroys confidence and mental health; it drains our economy; and it weakens our resilience and undermines confidence in the rule of law. This problem is directly linked to my work as Security Minister, because it helps to fuel some of the most serious threats we face as a country, as well as causing the human harm we have heard of today. Our response has to match the scale and impact of the threat. I believe the Government have acted with clarity and ambition, with the new fraud strategy published in March, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I thank him for acknowledging that he was happy to see elements of that, such as crucial international action and the replacement of Action Fraud—it was so difficult to see any action coming from it that it would have been better named “Inaction Fraud”. Thankfully, that has been replaced. As the strategy is put into effect, it will include Report Fraud, victim-support schemes and charters on advertising. In its broadest sense, the strategy brings together all parts of the system, including Government, law enforcement, industry and civil society, and goes further and faster in our fight to disrupt fraudsters and protect the public. The strategy is built on clear principles: to disrupt criminals, to safeguard people and businesses, to respond strongly, to protect victims and to enforce the law. The Government have invested £250 million and will work with everyone to clamp down on the fraud epidemic. We will try to make that money work as hard as possible in co-operation with other parts of the system to get best value for money. To some extent, that is my answer to the question the hon. Member for Yeovil asked about whether £250 million is enough: it is not a bad start, and we will see how it develops to ensure that we cover the bases that we need to cover in this area as quickly as possible. At the heart of the new approach is a new online crime centre, which has over £30 million of investment to bring Government, law enforcement, GCHQ and industry together in one place. Its mission is clear: to identify the technological enablers of fraud, which are rapidly evolving and industrialising, as I said before; to disrupt fraud at scale; and to deliver high-impact interventions at speed. The online crime centre is working on those things even as we speak. Safeguarding and supporting victims is also at the forefront of the strategy. We are strengthening public awareness through an expanded “Stop! Think Fraud” campaign because it is important to remember that, as plausible as some of these people are, the more we can increase the suspicion and resilience of the people who interact in these systems, the more likely we are to be more resilient to fraud. I acknowledge absolutely that the psychological cleverness of a lot of fraud is something to behold. These people are very clever at what they do. They are very sophisticated in how they draw people in. All of us have a duty to try to warn individuals about the kind of dangers out there from those very sophisticated approaches.

I am grateful for the contributions of all right hon. and hon. Members. The hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) was worried that we had changed the Bill in a way that would make it less effective, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) still made the case for having an exemption rather than a defence for humanitarian assistance. I confirm that in our view the Bill as originally written would have excluded humanitarian assistance completely, because of the primary purpose rule, but we felt that there was some merit in the argument about the chilling effect of not having a defence. That is why we accepted the amendments in the other place, but that is belt and braces—nothing has changed. We are trying to accommodate potentially legitimate worries and chilling effects that might have an effect on the operational effectiveness of some NGOs, even though the law itself would not have caught them.

The first duty of any Government is and will forever be to secure this country and keep all its inhabitants safe. It is a mission that has challenged us relentlessly, but it has grown and evolved in recent years. The threat posed by foreign powers will be known by all here: physical threats against individuals and property; theft of trade secrets; attempts to interfere in and influence our democracy; and cyber-attacks targeting both the state and the private sector that disrupt critical infrastructure and compromise sensitive data. As the House has heard many times before, the source of those threats has come predominantly, though not exclusively, from three countries: Russia, China and Iran. The threats from each present differently, but those threats are very real, and they are evolving. The Bill before us will strengthen the Government’s ability to disrupt hostile intelligence services and their proxies by adapting counter-terrorism tools to tackle state-based security threats to the UK. In developing this legislation, we have worked closely with the police, security and the intelligence agencies. The Bill gives our operational partners the powers that they need, and it does so in a way that reflects the differences between state and non-state actors. As Jonathan Hall himself has said, this Bill “does the job”. As the Bill progressed through its stages, the Government listened carefully to the arguments about legitimate humanitarian assistance, as well as concerns expressed by non-governmental organisations and the International Development Committee. The Government’s position remains that the Bill should not criminalise legitimate humanitarian aid work or the important work of journalists and diplomats.

Yes, my hon. Friend may know her Pepper v. Hart, and I have just put it on the record in this House, but obviously I will take a close look at the guidance as it is developed. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) made a powerful speech, particularly about the rising level of threat that we face. That is why the Bill needs to be on the statute book as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) asked about the designated threats defence. Again, the answer is the same: it is about the chilling effect.

I do not want us to go into specific examples, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we keep a very close eye on what proxy actors and state actors by proxy are doing in our country. We believe that designation, which is what this quite narrow Bill will allow us to do, will make it much clearer that we know what they are doing. It will make for a harder operating environment for those who wish us ill and are directed by state actors. That is what the legislation is intended to do. Against a backdrop of growing threat from foreign states and their proxies, including through espionage, interference, sabotage and threats to life, the Bill will strengthen the ability to disrupt hostile intelligence services and their proxies by adapting counter-terrorism tools to tackle state-based security threats in the UK. It will create a new power for the Secretary of State to designate organisations involved in foreign power threat activity, backed up by new criminal offences of supporting, assisting or obtaining benefits from designated bodies. There has been some concern, both in this House and in the other place, regarding potential unintended consequences, but I reassure the House that the Bill was never intended to, and does not, criminalise genuine humanitarian activity by NGOs or journalists or other legitimate activities. We have listened to the arguments, and it is right to put that matter beyond doubt. The amendments do that. We have worked closely with operational partners, and I am satisfied that these narrow amendments do not weaken the Bill. The Bill will enable proxy organisations to be treated in practice like foreign intelligence services, making it easier to prosecute those acting on their behalf. Overall, this manifesto commitment will strengthen the national security framework so that the UK becomes a more difficult operating environment for foreign intelligence services and state-linked proxies. With that, I commend the Lords amendments to the House. Question put, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

I do not agree with my hon. Friend’s interpretation of the Bill at all. The threats that we are facing mean that this Bill ought to be on the statute book sooner rather than later, so that we can begin to deal with them. As I was saying, the Government’s position remains that the Bill should not criminalise legitimate humanitarian aid work or the important work of journalists and diplomats, and it remains our view that the Bill does not have that effect. However, to avoid a potential chilling effect, the Government felt that it was better to accept amendments to the Bill to put that matter beyond doubt. That is why the Government supported amendments 1, 2, 4 and 6, tabled by Baroness Northover in the other place.

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

We are very confident that the Bill as it is written does not place journalists in any jeopardy. In fact, these measures allow us to act against those who are conducting harmful activity in the UK, including targeting journalists here in the UK because of their attempts to expose activities in other regimes. The right hon. Gentleman makes a more general point about the jeopardy in which journalists put themselves in war zones, and I would agree that their news reporting is some of the bravest. We all support a free press and journalists’ ability to report in war zones, but I would say respectfully to him that these things are slightly different and he is combining the two issues. We are convinced that this Bill does not and will not put journalists in any more jeopardy in this country—certainly not for reporting. Baroness Northover tabled amendments 1, 2, 4 and 6 in the other place. They introduce a new defence into the offences at new sections 17B and 17C of the National Security Act 2023, specifically to cover legitimate humanitarian aid activity. This means that non-governmental organisations that have to engage with a designated body in order to carry out legitimate humanitarian activity will benefit from the same protections under the Bill as do UK diplomats. The Government also supported amendments 3 and 5, which were tabled by Lord Anderson. These amendments were based on the advice of Jonathan Hall KC and also had the support of Lord Carlile. They add a reasonable excuse defence in new section 17C of the 2023 Act for obtaining, accepting or agreeing to accept information from a designated body. This means that where a person has a reasonable excuse for receiving information from a designated body, they benefit from a defence. This might include, for example, a journalist conducting an interview or a charity receiving information on the location of landmines. The Government considered the case for exempting humanitarian NGOs from the offences, but we were advised by our operational partners that this would provide a loophole that hostile actors would seek to exploit, which in turn could make the NGOs themselves a target for infiltration. In fact, that is the case that I made to this Chamber in Committee. I am grateful to the other place and the International Development Committee for their engagement on this Bill and for the constructive amendments, which have helped strengthen the Bill and broaden its support. The Bill represents an important new addition to our toolkit to address the growing threat from foreign powers. As I said in Committee, my officials have worked closely with operational partners in the creation of this power and the accompanying offences, and our partners are fully supportive of the Bill. It closes a gap, and they have been explicit that it provides them with vital tools capable of addressing the sharpest threats that they are tackling.

I agree, and it is important for the hon. Lady to understand that we are integrating climate change risks into our work. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is the leading Department on work on climate adaptation, not mitigation. It is important that lead Departments can focus on the issue at hand, and DEFRA is doing adaptation.

I give way.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on securing the debate. He will, of course, know the importance to this Government of the topics discussed today. Keeping the country safe is the first responsibility of any Government, and as the world changes, the way we uphold that responsibility must change with it. This adaptability is set out in the national security strategy, published last year at the beginning of the NATO summit in The Hague. Alongside it was the commitment to spend 5% of GDP on national security by 2035—3.5% for core defence spending and 1.5% for broader resilience and security spending. The Majority of the UK’s hard national security capabilities, such as the recently announced 150,000 drones that the Ministry of Defence will supply to Ukraine by the end of the year, are funded and delivered by line departments. The Cabinet Office’s role is ensuring the effective running of government, and co-ordinating cross-cutting policies and operations. More than 90% of the national security and resilience budget for the Cabinet Office is therefore spent on the day-to-day running costs of the National Security Secretariat. That is a vital body that works with Departments to implement the national security strategy. It develops, leads and delivers policy across Government, and aligns, convenes and brokers the collective efforts of our stakeholders and partners on all aspects of national security. It is the nerve centre of our collective cross-Government security response. However, that spending it is not by any means the vast amount that is spent on national security and resilience across Government. The Cabinet Office does invest in some assets. For example, the National Situation Centre, which is highly regarded internationally, provides situational awareness for crisis response by bringing together data analysis and expertise. The emergency alerts system is one of many public warning and informing capabilities that the UK Government, devolved Governments and category 1 responders have at their disposal. Since its launch, it has become an integral part of keeping the public safe, allowing the quick sharing of lifesaving information, and it is regularly tested to ensure its resilience. The UK Resilience Academy forms an important part of the skills and engagement offer. It was established in April last year to build the skills that are needed across the whole of society to respond to emergencies. The national security strategy consolidates various reviews and strategies related to national security into a single, coherent framework. It outlines the strategic context, identifies the main challenges we face as a nation in an era of radical uncertainty, and establishes the framework that the UK uses to guide its actions both at home and abroad. It is both a clear-eyed and a hard-edged plan to deal with the breadth of the challenges that we face, setting out a long-term vision for how we will do three crucial things: protect security at home, promote strength abroad, and increase our sovereign and asymmetric capabilities. The Government have developed an internal implementation approach to ensure the accountability and delivery of the national security strategy, as well as ensuring that we adapt to a volatile geopolitical landscape. That is why our national security is not the remit of one Department or Minister. We have identified specific objectives, and have assigned lead and assisting Departments to deliver them. Departments are responsible for periodic reporting on progress, and taking action to address any deficiencies. The Government will continue to update the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy on progress, through formal public sessions and confidential sessions where appropriate. As part of the implementation of the strategy, we continue to make ourselves a harder target for hostile actors who seek to exploit our open, democratic society. That includes bolstering our cyber and economic security defences, which are essential to the fostering of innovation and growth. Additionally, we are strengthening the defence of our borders and territorial waters. In April the former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), exposed covert Russian undersea activity, paying tribute to the readiness of the UK’s armed forces to respond. In May, Baroness Lloyd, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, outlined DSIT’s plans to present new legislative proposals to modernise and strengthen penalties for malicious activity impacting our undersea infrastructure. As I am sure events in recent weeks have made clear, our overriding priority is ensuring stability and security in the Euro-Atlantic area, starting with our unwavering support for Ukraine. In total, the UK has committed up to £25 billion for Ukraine: £16 billion in military support, £5.6 billion in non-military support, and £3.5 billion in UK export finance. We continue to go further, renewing and deepening our key alliances, particularly those with the United States and the European Union. All this work is bolstered by new international partnerships, especially in emerging policy areas such as technology—for example, the UK-India technology security initiative and the UK-Japan frontier technology partnership. It remains the Government’s intention to publish the defence investment plan before the NATO summit, which will take place on 7 July. The plan will set out much of our future strategy when it comes to how we will protect and defend our country. Let me give Members some idea of its focus. We will rebuild our core defence industrial base, focusing on achieving greater resilience in our stockpiles and supporting warfighting readiness.

The hon. Lady points out that adaptation is a cross-Government, cross-departmental thing. The way that the UK Government are organised means that Departments that are responsible for school buildings or transport deal with the adaptation issues that crop up in those Departments. I do not disagree with the hon. Lady’s analysis, but while the Cabinet Office does have a co-ordinating role, I do not necessarily think that having a Minister co-ordinating it would make an awful lot of difference.

All I will say is that it is important that we rebuild our industrial infrastructure and make sure that we not only maintain but strengthen our sovereign capabilities, not only for now but with forward-looking tech and investment. The Government are determined to do that. A foundation of our national security is our ability to assess, mitigate, respond to and recover from the risks that we face, should they manifest. These risks could come from anywhere. They could be natural hazards, as we have all been experiencing over the last few days, or they could be deliberate attacks, disease outbreaks or other civil emergencies.

The hon. Lady is correct, and she talks about mitigation. There is also an adaptation issue here, which I was addressing, but clearly the cross-departmental nature of co-ordination happens within the Cabinet Office. Our country’s resilience is front and centre of our approach to national security. Without security and resilience at home, we cannot deliver economic growth or any of our other missions to improve the lives of the British people. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) gave a good speech about what happens if corruption is allowed to get out of hand and people who defraud the public purse of money are allowed to get away with it. I thank him for asking important questions about Tom Hayhoe’s recommendations. I promise to make inquiries with colleagues in Government, and commit to writing to him about the specific issues that he raised in his speech. The Government inherited a resilience landscape that had too often been neglected, leaving our nation exposed to the shocks of an increasingly volatile world. The resilience action plan, published last July, sets out the Government’s strategic approach to creating a stronger and more resilient UK, and the steps being taken to deliver it. We face a rapidly changing global risk landscape. From severe weather to geopolitical instability, the risks are complex and numerous. We must be honest with the public about the challenges while demonstrating our resolve to address them head-on, and we have to strike a balance by giving an appropriate warning without panicking people. Building a truly resilient society requires a fundamental cultural shift in the way that emergency preparedness is thought about. That includes being clear about the risks we face and the actions that we can all take to improve collective resilience, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) said from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. In summary, our No. 1 priority is to keep the country safe. The Government are undertaking plenty of work within our own shores to strengthen our stance, which is further bolstered by our unshakeable commitment to Europe-wide security. That responsibility has been spread right across the Government, and it is emblematic of the good work that can come when collaboration is at the heart of planning. Thanks to this work, the risk landscape is not an unknown country; we have made it familiar terrain through rigorous mapping of what could harm us and our citizens, and of what our response should be. It is through level-headed planning that we will create resilience at home and, through that work, create a secure foundation for families, businesses and economies to thrive.

Has he just come in?

As always, the right hon. Gentleman has asked a very important question. I think the key thing to understand is that this work is ongoing, and that there will be co-operation between the current Prime Minister and—I do not want to get ahead of what Labour party members might decide to do—whoever the next Prime Minister will be. I hope that gives the right hon. Gentleman some assurance. Beyond defence, we will identify, protect and cultivate other sovereign capabilities, such as foundational industries and frontier technologies, that are critical to our industrial base and national competitiveness. I was interested by what my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington said in this connection. We are in close contact and collaboration with states such as Canada to learn as much as we can about how they do resilience, although I might gently suggest that the Canadian landmass is slightly different from the UK landmass when it comes to thinking of organising a defence for it, and slightly different approaches will clearly have to be taken, given the geographical realities. However, there is much on which we can co-operate.

I assure the House that, given the Department I was in previously, I am able to join up the “food security is national security” mantra in a stronger way than has perhaps happened. The Government’s land use framework, which was published earlier in the year, demonstrates how we can ensure through multiple land use that we can build the homes we need and grow the food we need. The farming road map published yesterday demonstrates a plan for growth for UK primary production.

My hon. Friend is quite right to identify the threats from hostile foreign actors that we currently face, which evolve and rapidly change. I can assure her that we will continue not only to track those threats, but to give advice and information that helps businesses, communities and individuals to deal with them.

SMEs, individuals and communities should look at the national advice that is published and check on gov.uk/prepare, so that they can take the advice. It is simple and it is up there.

We always assess security risks on a case-by-case basis, and we do not discuss what they are in public.

I recognise that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents have concerns, as do the constituents of other Cornish Members of Parliament who have talked to me. Hundreds were left without telecom services for days after Storm Goretti, which is clearly unacceptable. It is important that we work with telecoms operators and power suppliers to strengthen comms resilience across Cornwall. I will take a close look at that.

The overnight news of the earthquake in Venezuela, which has caused a lot of damage, is very concerning. I know that my colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office stand ready, as do we, to help with any recovery that the people of Venezuela may need, particularly in terms of rescue at this stage.

Through our resilience action plan, we are driving a whole-of-society approach to resilience, which seeks to integrate the voluntary, community and faith sectors into planning and strengthening the resilience of our critical national infrastructure. The Government are also committed to raising public awareness, with practical advice through gov.uk/prepare.

We are driving a step change in national resilience through our resilience action plan. Central to that is our national security risk assessment, which embeds clear accountability for lead Government Departments across all risks. We are further enhancing this co-ordination by publishing updated guidance this year. That will ensure that every Department is fully equipped to deliver its responsibilities and works seamlessly across the resilience cycle to keep the country safe.

I know that the extreme heat has extended even to Harlow, which has surprised some people; it indicates the nature of the threat. We have had a red alert. I will repeat the advice to drink plenty of fluids, and those who are travelling should take a lot of water with them, and be sensible and careful in these conditions. Clearly, water safety is an important issue. The National Fire Chiefs Council has issued good advice about water safety. If you are too hot, jumping into a very cold body of water is not a good idea, tempting though it may seem.

I will get back to the hon. Gentleman. I have to confess that I have not had my briefing on space yet.

We are delivering our resilience action plan to strengthen national resilience, and we are building a system in which Government, business and society work together to anticipate and mitigate the risks facing our country.

Dual-use infrastructure is an important part of how we do planning, and my hon. Friend is right that we have to be much smarter and more forward thinking than perhaps has been the case, knowing that we face a very volatile and rapidly changing series of threats ahead.

When I was first in government in 1997, I discovered that I was the Minister for Canals, which was a particularly enjoyable part of the brief, so I understand what the hon. Lady is saying. My previous Department, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, does a lot on this issue, so I will contact the Water Minister. We can liaise, and I will be in touch with the hon. Lady.

I certainly empathise and sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman’s loss. The loss of a parent in similar circumstances has been felt in many other households because of the toll taken by the legacy of asbestos on our public buildings and our buildings generally—not least this one. I take the point that he has made. We always need to be looking at how we can improve our response to mitigate the very real threat that the remaining asbestos in our buildings leaves people dealing with.

The national risk register includes the effects of climate change. Although the Government are working internationally on mitigation, it is also important that adaptation takes centre stage when the kinds of investment decisions my hon. Friend mentions are made. I assure her that the Government are across that.

I think that there are some necessary differences between a terrorist organisation and a state-influenced or state proxy organisation, which the differences between the Bill and the National Security Act—which deals with terrorism—seek to bring out. Jonathan Hall said that the Bill “does the job” in closing that loophole. He also told the House that he thought it would be harder to achieve the prosecutions for designated organisations than those for terrorist organisations. The Bill builds on a tried and tested series of measures in the National Security Act, and we have developed it closely with operational partners. It does the job. We do not believe that it is tougher to get appropriate prosecutions up and running in this context.

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in today’s Second Reading debate. We have had a very powerful and relevant debate, with a great deal of expertise in the Chamber from both sides of the House. State threats are overt or covert actions by foreign Governments that fall below the level of armed conflict, but go beyond legitimate diplomacy to harm UK interests. They present a persistent and evolving risk to the UK and our allies, and that evolution and the hybrid nature of the threats we face today has come across in all the many excellent contributions we have heard from Members on both sides of the House. There is cross-party recognition that the threats we are dealing with are increasingly complex, and rapidly changing and evolving. They manifest across a wide spectrum of activity, including interference in democratic processes, acquisition of sensitive information, threats to public safety and disruption of economic security. We all know—it has been mentioned by many hon. and right hon. Members—that certain states have the intent and capability to conduct such activity to advance their objectives. We have talked about Iran, Russia and China. Such activity is often opportunistic. It is adaptive, and it is increasingly integrated across multiple domains, combining physical, cyber, economic and international tools. Increasingly, as has been pointed out, it involves new and emerging tools such as AI, as well as TikTok, cyber, AI and a range of other things. In December 2024, the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), commissioned the independent reviewer of state threats legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, to conduct a review into the tools available in terrorism legislation to see how they might be applied to the problem of state threats. He proposed that there should be legislation to create a state threats power equivalent to that of proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000, and although the Bill does not deliver the recommendations of the entire Jonathan Hall report, it does deliver that proposal. To that extent, it is a narrow, not a comprehensive Bill. It is important that Members from all parts of the House understand that that is what the Bill does. Rather than trying to shoehorn everything else into this Bill, it is important that we understand the nature of the Bill and what it actually does. It strengthens the Government’s ability to disrupt hostile intelligence services and their proxies by adapting counter-terrorism tools to tackle state-based security threats to the UK. It seeks to close that loophole. It creates a new power for the Secretary of State to designate organisations involved in foreign power threat activity, modelled on the Terrorism Act 2000. It introduces three new criminal offences of supporting, assisting or obtaining benefits from designated bodies. The Bill will enable proxy organisations to be treated in practice like foreign intelligence services, making it easier to prosecute those acting on their behalf. It strengthens the overall national security framework so that the UK becomes a more difficult operating environment for foreign intelligence services and their state-linked proxies. Individuals acting for a designated body will feel the full force of our national security legislation and the potential accompanying prison sentences of up to 14 years. Designation will send a clear public signal to bodies and those prepared to assist them that their malign behaviour will not be tolerated in the UK. Our manifesto committed to adapt the approach used for dealing with terrorism to state-based security threats, and that is precisely what the Bill does. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) is a passionate responder at the Dispatch Box, and her interest in this area and her commitment to getting it right are clear. The Government have been working on this legislation since Jonathan Hall made his recommendation. The Prime Minister, in the light of the arson incidents that we saw in north London earlier this year, gave a firm commitment to legislate in a matter of weeks, and we are doing just that to close this loophole on state or proxy-based threats. To be clear, this legislation is no less robust than the Terrorism Act 2000. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, Jonathan Hall said that using terror legislation is “shopping in the wrong department”. This Bill will ensure that we are shopping in the right department.

I suspect that lawyers often use words like “likely”, because they are very rarely ready to commit to “absolutely”. Perhaps we need to deal with some of this in more detail in Committee, but we are assured that overseas activity will be covered in the interactions of this Bill, and case law makes that more likely. I am loath to go through in detail the Committee-style points that were made during the debate. What I will say is that designation is the closest we can get to state-inspired and connected proxies or organisations, so that we can prevent them from behaving in the way that they are behaving on our streets day in, day out. A designation will allow us to ensure that we capture and prosecute the malign activity in which hybrid and state actors involve themselves, so this Bill closes the gap that Jonathan Hall discovered in the National Security Act. We wish to get the Bill on the statute book so that we can deal with the rising threats on our streets, which many Members on both sides of the House mentioned in their Second Reading speeches. I am extremely grateful that all Front Benchers support the Bill and will not vote against it, and I look forward to dealing with some of the amendments in much greater detail in Committee. I urge the House to give this Bill a Second Reading. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).

I am more than happy to create a circumstance in which we can do that. I think there have been some misunderstandings about what protections are offered in the Bill, and some of the amendments seek to address gaps that are not actually there. However, I am more than happy to deal with that, and I will be in touch with the right hon. Gentleman to organise it before the Bill goes to the House of Lords. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) said that the Bill did not take into account activity outside the UK. She was wrong to say that that was not covered. The offences capture activity outside the UK where it is contrary to the safety or interests of the UK, and case law has made it clear that the definition of “safety and interests of the UK” is wide. As I have said, we have worked closely with operational partners to shape the Bill, and we are confident that it will provide the powers that are needed. There have been successful prosecutions under the National Security Act, which demonstrates that powers of this kind work.

I have a great deal of respect for my right hon. Friend, as he knows, but in order for that to be the case, this Government would have to decide to designate the Cuba Solidarity Campaign. Obviously I cannot talk about what may or may not be designated should the Bill get on the statute book, but I think he is winding himself up into a bit of a tight knot.

The Bill does accord with the European convention on human rights, international law and all our obligations. The prohibited purpose test is there precisely to give assurance to bodies like the one that the hon. Member mentioned, so that there will not be any dubiety about whether they can engage with the organisations that they must work with as part of their core job.

Yes. This is the test that delivers that assurance.

I have to commend the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) for doing her homework. I wish to explain why we do not think these amendments are needed at the moment. There are a couple of themes that run through my response to the hon. Lady’s amendments. The first is that it is not possible to treat a state body the same as a terrorist organisation, because one cannot abolish a state body. One has to think about the differences between the two, which is why we have called the measure closing the loophole in this Bill designation, rather than proscription. It is also the case that we clearly have other international obligations, both under international law, for the sovereignty of individual states, and under diplomatic law, with the Vienna convention, so that we can enable diplomatic relations or other arrangements with states that we might not approve of particularly. Within that difference lie some of the different approaches in the Bill and in the hon. Lady’s amendments. The other common theme, which perhaps divides us in our approach to the Bill, as well as explaining the differences and why we will not be accepting the hon. Lady’s amendments, is that we are not trying to put all of Jonathan Hall’s recommendations on to the statute book in this Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in her opening remarks, we have accepted all the recommendations in Jonathan Hall’s report and will be legislating for them subsequently. What we wish to do with this quite narrow Bill is close that loophole with state-sponsored or proxy organisations as quickly as possible so that we can deal with the rising threats present on our streets as we speak. It may help to bear those two things in mind as I lay out the Government’s position regarding the amendments that the hon. Lady has just spoken to. Through amendments 3 to 6, the hon. Lady seeks to remove the prohibited purpose test. The test is there precisely to cover the difference in treatment between terrorist organisations and states, which we cannot proscribe and with which we may have to have some kind of arrangements. While the Bill is modelled on the provisions in the Terrorism Act 2000, it has to reflect the realities of dealing with state entities. That is what the prohibited purpose test is about. There may be some cases where UK persons need to have legitimate dealings with a state entity; it might be a British diplomat or a non-governmental organisation delivering humanitarian aid. The prohibited purpose test is necessary to protect legitimate conduct without creating loopholes that can be exploited by hostile actors.

I note the hon. Lady’s point. Amendment 10 would “create an offence of engaging in conduct in preparation for committing, or assisting another to commit, an offence relating to a designated body.” It is not necessary, because a person who engages in conduct of any kind, including preparatory conduct, that is intended to assist a designated body in carrying out UK-related activities would be caught by the Bill’s provisions. The hon. Lady talked about what she called a loophole; she said that the Bill does not cover attacks inspired by a designated body. Her amendment 13 would create a new offence for self-directed acts inspired by a designated body, but we do not believe it is necessary. The test for the assisting offence in proposed new section 17B of the National Security Act is whether conduct is intended to assist a designated organisation, or whether the person ought to have known that their conduct was likely to assist the organisation. The person does not need to be tasked or directed by the organisation to commit the offence, so those who are inspired to do things, rather than being asked or told to do things by the designated body, are caught. With amendment 8, the hon. Lady seeks to capture conduct that occurs outside the UK but is planned within the UK. Again, we believe it is unnecessary. If planning takes place in the UK, it is already caught in the Bill, under the offence in proposed new section 17B of assisting a designated body. That offence refers to conduct of any kind, and it will be an offence to plan something in the UK that takes place outside the UK if it materially assists a designated body in carrying out activities that are prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK—the prohibited purpose test. That could cover someone in the UK who assists a designated body in its work, done overseas, to target an ally of the UK, so the amendment is unnecessary. Amendment 14 would create an offence relating to the dissemination of publications that encourage support for a designated body. The conduct that the amendment seeks to address is already covered by the new offence of supporting a designated body. I think the hon. Lady wanted people to be criminalised for wearing clothing or displaying flags or similar symbols linked to a designated body. The Bill does not ban the wearing or carrying of an image, because we cannot ban what might be worn by a foreign diplomat, but if somebody is supporting or promoting the hostile activities of a proscribed body in any way, they will be caught by the new support offence. I hope that assures the hon. Lady that that issue is covered. New clauses 5 and 6 would give effect to other recommendations made by Jonathan Hall by creating new powers to seize travel documents, and to allow police to apply for serious crime prevention orders in relation to offences committed under this legislation. We are committed to legislating on those recommendations and, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on Second Reading, we will do so as soon as parliamentary time allows.

I think it is about consistency. The Bill was drafted to try to mirror—albeit in a slightly different context—the Terrorism Act provisions, while fitting into the National Security Act’s provisions, so that we do not have a complicated range of tests. Amendment 7 relates to defences and sentencing. Essentially, the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) wishes to increase the prison sentence for actively assisting to 25 years from the current 14 years. The idea is that 14 years would very much fit in with the sentences under the National Security Act, and we would not end up with a complex range of sentences for quite similar offences. One could increase both, if we were minded to do so, but the point about the introduction of designation in the Bill is that it is trying to fit into the National Security Act, which has been working quite well, rather than our having a whole range of different sentences for very similar offences.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. This Bill will create crucial new powers to allow the Government to keep pace with the evolving threat picture that Members from all parties referred to in the previous debates. The Bill will now move on to the other place, where I am sure colleagues will give it rigorous scrutiny while ensuring that its passage continues as smoothly as possible.

Action that is prejudicial to the safety and interests of the UK is the test that we are talking about. If one were delivering humanitarian aid and had to deal with part of a state that we did not particularly approve of, that would not be prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK. It would be in line with what the UK wished to do, but if it were prejudicial, because it was hostile activity, the test would be passed.

New clause 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), would require the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations designating the IRGC within a month of this Act coming into force, but the exercise of these powers under this Bill will have significant implications for national security and foreign policy, and it is right that they should be exercised independently by the Secretary of State on the basis of expert advice, including from the security and intelligence agencies. That is what this Bill allows, and putting these designations on the face of the Bill would be a very difficult way to effect the change, so the way to do this is the way that the Bill sets out. The hon. Member for Cheltenham’s new clause 4, which would “require the Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation to assess the adequacy of the powers introduced by this Act twelve months after its passing”, is already essentially covered by the Bill’s provisions, because they would be subject to part 3 of the National Security Act. The independent reviewer of state threats legislation has to carry out an annual review into the operation of its provisions, and is also empowered by part 1 of that Act to review any other such things he or she sees fit. Amendment 2 would require the draft affirmative procedure to be used for regulations removing a designation. He is right that such regulations should receive the proper parliamentary scrutiny, and the Bill already provides that such regulations are subject to the draft affirmative procedure. The use of the negative procedure is limited to very minor technical changes, such as the addition of aliases. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asked whether it would be possible to proscribe a particular group, and gave a particular example. The test is whether the body is engaged in “foreign power threat activity”; it is a high bar, and it targets organisations that pose a real threat to the UK. I cannot imagine for one minute that my right hon. Friend would be involved in any of those. Amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), would provide further examples of conduct that would be considered a material benefit, and he spoke about what those might be. Obtaining material benefits from a foreign intelligence service is an existing offence under section 17 of the National Security Act, so I do not think the further examples of conduct in amendment 1 are needed, as that conduct is already caught by the provisions in the Bill.

It is not only diplomats. It may well be NGOs delivering humanitarian aid and people who have to come across states or their designated proxies in particular cases.

I think it is to cover all potential actions that individuals may undertake that are okay; they can assure themselves that an activity is okay, even if it involves a designated state, if it is not prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK. Many humanitarian organisations are worried about being inadvertently caught in the designation process, and the prohibited purpose test is there to give assurance in those contexts.

I am more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to talk about this important issue, if he so desires, or a cross-party group of MPs. I point out that in the recent trade deals, both with the Gulf Co-operation Council and India, we have protected both the poultry egg and poultry meat sectors from the kind of approach we saw in the trade deal that the Conservative Government did with Australia.

I am happy to meet the rural research group to talk about these important issues, but under UK food labelling rules, food that is not of UK origin cannot be labelled with a British flag, and if the primary ingredient is not British, it cannot be labelled as such without pointing out that the primary ingredient is not British. If my hon. Friend has any examples of where that is happening, I would like to see them.

As set out in our welfare strategy, we are working with the farming and food industry, vets and scientists to explore how improved animal welfare labelling could improve consumer transparency, support farmers and promote better animal welfare.

I think “robust” would probably be my summary. To help with the pressure on food prices, we are planning to cut tariffs on over 100 everyday food products such as olive oil, biscuits and chocolate, saving consumers more than a £150 million a year. We have ensured that the items selected for tariff suspension have little to no production in the UK, so protecting and securing our vital domestic production.

I lobby the Home Office constantly on quite a lot of things; I will certainly make sure that daffodils are also taken into account.

The farming and food partnership board is looking at profitability, and the sector growth plans for horticulture and poultry have already been announced. We have reduced red diesel duty, we will open the reformed SFI and will shortly publish our 25-year farming road map, our response to the Batters farming profitability review.

Farming is devolved, so the first port of call for Welsh farmers is the Welsh Government. As I said, I am looking forward to meeting the new Minister and will do my best to work with all the devolved Administrations, including in Wales.

The Government are taking decisive action to support our farming sector, with farmers in Wales benefiting from measures such as cutting the duty on red diesel to its lowest rate in over 20 years. I look forward to meeting Wales’s new Rural Resilience and Sustainability Minister and working closely with him to support the farming sector.

We are cleaning up the mess left by the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal that reduced exports by 22%, so I will not take any lessons from the hon. Gentleman.

I have engaged directly with Salmon Scotland on the UK-EU SPS agreement, and colleagues have discussed the deal with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation. We will continue that close engagement as negotiations progress, and we are committed to supporting businesses and providing clear guidance, so that they are ready to benefit from the agreement from day one.

Now that certain democratic processes have taken place, I am looking forward to being able to come north of the border. I can assure the hon. Member that I am well aware that 65% of all UK seafood is exported to the EU, and therefore the more friction we can take away from that border crossing, the more certainty there is and the more value those exports have. Given that as a nation, we tend to export a lot of the fish we catch rather than eat it ourselves, this is clearly a very important issue.

The Government are committed to ensuring that fertiliser markets work fairly for farmers and to strengthening resilience in the supply chain. We are ensuring that we can have a more reliable source of fertiliser and more efficient use in our own country, and we are doing a lot of work on this issue as I speak.

We are working across Government to respond to the pressures created by the middle east conflict. I have asked the Competition and Markets Authority to consider industry concerns about fertiliser and we have increased the frequency of official fertiliser price reporting, which is now published weekly by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board giving farmers faster and more transparent information.

May I point out that UK production of fertiliser using those processes was made reliant on America because the last Government decided to close the ammonia factory? In looking at resilience, the Chancellor has announced a business engagement exercise to consider whether targeting tariff cuts on fertiliser would be of assistance, so that is an ongoing issue.

I am in close contact with domestic fertiliser suppliers. I held a ministerial roundtable with them and industry leaders across food farming and the supply chain to hear about the pressures and confirm our readiness to act when required, so the hon. Lady can be assured that we will do that. Let me take this opportunity to welcome her to her role on the Opposition Front Bench—she is a sort of constituency neighbour, really.

I thank all those who have contributed to this short but perfectly formed debate. The draft regulations were announced last June as part of a process that commenced under the previous Government following Brexit, when they announced a seven-year programme to transition away from the common agricultural policy, which makes delinked payments, to a much more focused environmental policy. The previous Government created that policy and the then Labour Opposition supported it, because we both accepted that farming has to be done on a more sustainable basis. We must see nature recovery, we must invest in healthy soils and in recreating healthy pollinator populations, and we must ensure reasonable food production rather than degrading our natural assets and resources to maximise food production at any cost. We are shifting to a much more sustainable model, and although the Opposition indicated that they will vote against the draft regulations, I hope that everybody can support that shift in principle. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley said that we are going too fast, but the farming transition was a seven-year transition. All the ELM schemes and support for farmers will be involved in protecting nature and increasing sustainability, rather than going towards delinked payments. He seems to object not to the end point, but to the speed of the transition over the next two years. I understand what he is saying, but I think that he is dancing on the head of a pin.

Sufficient notification has been given, since the transition began seven years ago—everybody has been expecting it. It is important that we get the transition done. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the money being taken away from delinked payments is going straight back into the system and will be available for the transition. The Government remain convinced that delinked payments are not an effective way of supporting our farmers, protecting food security or restoring nature. Former Secretary of State Lord Gove certainly agreed with that when he began the transition after Brexit. We continue to invest in our environmental land management schemes and our range of grants and other support for farmers to deliver public goods, reward sustainable farming and boost productivity. Without the reductions contained in the draft regulations, spend on delinked payments in each of the years 2026-27 and 2027-28 would increase to £1.8 billion, leaving a shortfall in the remaining farming budget for each of those years that then could not be spent on financing the transition. Those who believe in the principle of the transition need also to believe in the means. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk spoke extremely well about his farmers, and I welcome his support. I understand that the transition can be difficult and worrisome, but it is crucial for the future of our farming profitability and resilience that we manage to get this done. The Government are determined to assist farmers all we possibly can in achieving the transition. The vast majority of them know that it has to happen, and we will see what we can do to ensure that it does. The money released by reducing delinked payments is not being lost to the sector; it is being reinvested through our other schemes for farmers and managers. We are being transparent about how the money is used. Each year, we publish a farming and countryside partnership annual report, which shows how the farming budget has been spent. The report for the financial year 2024-25 was published last September. We will publish our next report later this year. That will be transparent about where the money has gone and how it has been spent. We have provided a breakdown of how we plan to spend an average of £2.3 billion a year through the farming and countryside programme, showing planned spend for each of the years between 2026-27 and 2028-29. That was set out in a farming blog, which is available on the Government website. It is clear that we cannot achieve our environmental goals or have food security unless farm businesses are profitable. By increasing investment in our environmental land management schemes, we are helping farmers to protect the environment and the business foundations of farming—our soils, our water and our pollinators—which will help to reduce their input costs and boost productivity. We know that there is high demand from farmers for our ELM schemes, so I am pleased that SFI26 will be opening to small farms later this month. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley said that it was for small farms only, but the first window is also open to those without an existing agreement, so it is a slightly wider opening than he hinted at in his speech. As was announced at the NFU conference, in 2026-27 we will invest £120 million in new productivity grants, which can help businesses to cut costs, improve efficiency and protect profits. Farmers can also boost their businesses through the animal health and welfare pathway, a programme designed to strengthen biosecurity, manage disease risks and improve animal health and welfare outcomes, which, in turn, boost farm productivity and profitability. We are also continuing our work to ensure fair competition across the supply chain, and have announced planning reform to unlock food and farming infrastructure development. The Government’s new farming and food partnership board has set out how it will work to drive growth in all sectors, improving productivity and profitability. It is beginning its work with two sectors—horticulture and poultry—but it will get on to work in others. Our vision is to help farmers to improve their productivity and profitability, and to collaborate with them on delivering positive environmental change. Continuing to phase out delinked payments will enable us to invest in the long-term future of farming, by ensuring that funding is targeted where it can have the greatest impact. I commend the regulations to the Committee. Question put.

I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. This is the first time that you and I have been in the same room in this context. The draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 10 March, will set the reductions applying to delinked payments for England for the years 2026 and 2027. In doing so, they will deliver on our commitment to phase out those subsidies by the end of the seven-year agricultural transition period, as we redirect funding to our other schemes for farmers. The last year of delinked payments will be 2027. The Government are committed to supporting our farmers and the vital role they play. We will continue to invest in our farmers and land managers, to make their businesses, food production and our country more sustainable and resilient in the years ahead. Reducing delinked payments is essential if we are to fund the other schemes that will help us to achieve that. Delinked payments do not address the underlying challenges affecting farm profitability; they do not support the healthy soils, abundant pollinators and clean water needed to produce good food, or promote innovation and provide good value for money. The reductions to delinked payments will complete the move away from the previous scheme, which rewarded land ownership, with 50% of payments going to the largest 10% of firms. We are applying the reductions fairly, with larger reductions to amounts of the higher payment band. We announced the reductions last June to help farmers to plan ahead. The money released from delinked payments is being reinvested in the sector. Farmers and land managers will benefit from an average of £2.3 billion a year over the period 2026-27 and 2028-29 through the farming and countryside programme, and get up to £400 million extra from additional nature schemes, including those for tree planting and restoring peatlands. The investment includes increasing annual funding to the environmental land management schemes from £1.8 billion in 2025-26 to more than £2 billion by 2028-29. That means we are backing farmers with the largest nature-friendly budget in history to support them to restore nature and boost farm productivity. There are now 50,000 farm businesses, and half of all farmland is managed under our environmental land management schemes. Earlier this year, we announced plans for a new sustainable farming incentive offer, and the first application window will open later this month. The new offer will ensure that more farmers can access funding. A range of improvements are being introduced to make the sustainable farming incentive 2026 simpler, more streamlined and easier to navigate. The new offer will continue to support sustainable farming by strengthening the environmental foundations of farm profitability and our long-term food security. Last September, the new countryside stewardship higher tier opened for applications for those who have been invited to apply. They have received pre-application advice and completed any preparatory work. Landscape recovery projects that were awarded funding in rounds 1 and 2 are continuing to progress towards the delivery phase. Plans for a third round will be confirmed in due course. The latest round of the environmental land management capital grant offer will open in July, backed by £225 million in funding—a 50% increase from the last financial year. We have also announced plans for £120 million in innovation and productivity grants in 2026-27. Such grants can help the sector to access cutting edge technology and techniques, such as robotic weeders, which reduce chemical use in our countryside and help farmers to grow more food. This funding forms part of the Government’s commitment to invest at least £200 million in agricultural innovation by 2030 to improve productivity and to trial new technology as part of the UK’s modern industrial strategy. We will spend up to £30 million over three years on a new approach to farm collaboration and advice, and we are working with Dr Hilary Cottam to develop a place-based approach for upland communities. We have also extended the farming in protected landscapes programme for another three years, until March 2029. We want to continue to work in partnership with the sector. We have established a farming and food partnership board, which brings together voices from farming, food, retail and finance to drive profitability, building on the recommendations made in Baroness Batters’s farming profitability review. We have also engaged with farmers and stakeholders on the 25-year farming road map, which will set out the Government’s long-term vision for farming, giving farmers the clarity they need to plan ahead. We want farm businesses that are productive, profitable and resilient, while contributing to food security and nature recovery. The reductions to delinked payments are essential to enable us to make the planned investments in the future of farming and the countryside. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

I certainly am well aware that the SFI that we have inherited is not particularly well suited to the uplands. That is why we are doing work with Hilary Cottam to see what we can do to provide a different method of support that is much more community based. I recognise the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises about common land, but I would want to see whether we can make some changes to the higher level schemes, which I think are probably more suited to supporting farmers in that kind of setting. Not everything, all the time, has to go into SFI. I am looking to see whether we can create a more coherent structure for upland farmers and also, obviously, commoners in that circumstance. I am quite happy to keep the hon. Gentleman in touch with how that is going. I am sure that, given that Hilary Cottam is doing some work in his own area, he will be at least as in touch with it as I am. Fuel is another issue that was raised in the debate. Price spikes can feed straight into farm costs, particularly for those who rely on red diesel. Red diesel continues to benefit from an 80% discount, saving farmers almost £300 million a year. There is also a 5p fuel duty cut in place from March until September. Where concerns have been raised about price transparency, we have raised them with the Competition and Markets Authority, which is monitoring petrol and supply prices closely. Industry bodies have been clear with us that fuel production and imports are continuing across the UK as usual. The Government continue to monitor sales, deliveries and stock levels, and well-established contingency plans exist should they ever be required. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth raised farming schemes and grants. I understand the pressure that the uncertainty we are now facing in the world because of what is happening in the middle east applies to farmers, coming as it does after the impacts of climate change-related extreme weather in recent years, which have damaged harvests. This Government will work with farmers to deliver long-term solutions to the risks of extreme wet and dry weather, and to increase profitability, because when farmers can run profitable businesses, it is good for the whole economy and vital for our food security.

Entrance into the industry is a really important issue. Often, it is an issue of access to land to farm at all, and I am certainly thinking very carefully about what we might do with respect to that. If the hon. Lady has any insights from her own constituency, I am happy for her to share them with me, and we can see whether we can deal with the issue of how to get younger people into farming and get them some land to farm. We have allocated a record £11.8 billion to sustainable farming and food production over this Parliament. Overall, farmers and land managers will benefit from an average of £2.3 billion a year through the farming and countryside programme. We are increasing investment in environmental land management schemes, rising towards £2 billion by 2028-29, because profitable farming depends on the fundamentals, which are healthy soils, clean water and resilient ecosystems. We are also improving how support is delivered. I recognise some of the issues—

Let me finish my sentence. I recognise some of the issues that have been raised about the uncertainty around the schemes.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, for what I think is the first time in Westminster Hall. I congratulate the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord)—and his crew, I have to say, after that performance—on securing this debate. I thank all Members who have made contributions. We know that farming matters to every constituency because it not only supports rural jobs and communities but produces the food we rely on and underpins our national resilience. I recognise the pressures many farm businesses face. Input costs can rise quickly and global markets, as we have seen recently, can shift overnight. That uncertainty makes it harder to plan, invest and employ, which is why the approach of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is both long term and practical: stable funding, and simpler, fairer schemes designed to make farming more resilient and sustainable in the future—sustainable both environmentally and financially. I will first address fertiliser, because I appreciate it is the major input in an arable setting. It is a cost that is a real worry for farmers. Recent market volatility has seen a 40% increase in prices for some fertiliser products and DEFRA is monitoring the impact on agricultural supply chains. We have direct lines open with domestic fertiliser suppliers, commodity traders and farming stakeholders, including the National Farmers’ Union—in fact, I have just been in a meeting with Tom Bradshaw. We all do our bit to meet as many of our farmers and their representatives as possible to know exactly what is going on where, so that it can inform our decision making. Better information helps farmers make decisions that are up to date with the current situation, which is obviously in great flux. That is why we asked the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board to increase the frequency of fertiliser price reporting, and welcome its move to publish price data weekly, giving farmers more timely and transparent information. We also recently ran a survey to understand how the rise in fertiliser prices and supply issues are impacting our farmers and land managers on the ground. Responses are being reviewed alongside other industry intelligence to guide how we shape future support. DEFRA’s new nutrient management planning tool is supporting farmers by matching nutrients to crop and soil needs, enabling them to make the most of nutrient sources, reducing their reliance on artificial fertilisers. Over 500 farms have used this since it was launched. We are also consulting and gathering evidence to modernise fertiliser product regulations, improving future supply options and resilience. The pressures imposed by events in the middle east only underline the importance of increasing the efficiency of fertiliser use. Whether through more effective use of technology or adoption of more sustainable farming practices, we can better equip our farmers and growers to produce food in a more resilient way. The Government stand ready to help farmers do just that, whether through our innovation funds and equipment grants, or our continued shift from area-based subsidy to environmental land management schemes.

It is really important that we try to give a younger generation of people the chances given by access to land so that they can farm. I certainly think that we have not had a look at farming education and the ways into the sector for a very long time. I would certainly like to be able to do that.

I will not get into the decimation of Devon; I will leave that to the hon. Lady. I have clocked the existence of county farms. I think they are a good thing and I have sought some advice on what we can do to support them sensibly, because they are a way for people to get into farming that we should cherish. I have taken a lot of interventions, so I will now press on and say a little about the future vision for farming, because supporting farmers is also about building more profitable businesses and stronger partnerships from farm to fork. We are doing that by modernising capital grants, which will be open to apply for from July, with £225 million available, which is 50% more than in 2025. These grants will help farmers to upgrade infrastructure and deliver practical improvements, including to hedgerows, water quality and natural flood management. This year, £120 million will be available in farming grants to boost productivity innovation, consisting of £70 million through the farming innovation programme and £50 million through the farming equipment and technology fund. I also want to talk about the Batters review and its 57 recommendations. We have already announced that we will take forward a number of the review’s recommendations, including the formation of a Farming and Food Partnership Board. Indeed, that board has already met and decided that horticulture will be the first agricultural sector to have a sector growth plan, which will be developed as part of the board’s work. I agree with the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth that we need to consider what we can do make the growing of fruit and vegetables more resilient; he pointed out that that is the sector where we have the most difficulty in generating resilience. The Farming and Food Partnership Board is also looking at the poultry sector. We will continue to develop our farming road map, which will be published later this year alongside our formal response to the rest of the recommendations of the Batters review. This road map will set the course for farming in England up to 2050, setting out how farming will evolve in response to changing markets, technologies and environmental pressures. In developing the road map, we have held workshops, meetings and listening sessions across the country, to ensure that it reflects what farmers need on the ground to plan for the future. I think that this is the first time since the second world war that a Government have tried to set more of a Government direction for agriculture, so that we can work with the farming sector to ensure that we can increase resilience and give food security the proper priority it deserves. By definition, some of that work means that we have to look through the near-term pressures and problems that the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth has raised today. However, it is important strategically that we are able to do that. I also want to respond to the concern raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley). The Government take the issue of mental health support for farmers very seriously. We are tripling the previous funding for mental health and wellbeing support for farmers, and a new fund, which overall will be worth £1.5 million over three years, will be introduced. We want this investment to help farmers to deal with the pressures and potential isolation that they face. It builds on our commitment to improve business resilience through the £30 million farmer collaboration fund, because we think that self-help and peer help are often the most important ways to get through to farmers. That has been a very quick look around the system, Mr Turner, but I hope that it gives some idea of the work that DEFRA is doing for farming. Question put and agreed to.

I think I have just said that that is precisely what I want to do. Again, if the hon. Member has any insights that she wishes to share, I am more than happy to hear them. When I visited Harper Adams University recently, I noted that it now has a campus in an urban area. Consequently, people are likely to come across it in a way they were unlikely to come across that venerable old institution’s original building, which of course it still inhabits. That extension of the university into an urban area is a good idea. I can see that the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) wants to intervene, so I will give way to her.

I thank the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for securing this debate and providing an opportunity for me to outline the regulation of the marmalade market. As Paddington Bear wisely reminds us: “A wise bear always keeps a marmalade sandwich in his hat in case of emergency.” As hon. Members may notice, I do not have a hat, and I hope that we do not have an emergency. I certainly do not have a sandwich, so I hope that we will not get into any sticky situations, although I thought that we were getting into some spicy situations when I was listening to the hon. Lady’s speech. After the flurry of media stories over Easter about marmalade, this is a topical debate, but I think Paddington himself would be mildly exasperated by all the marmalade nonsense that has been spread around in the papers. In response, I want to reassure Members of the House that absolutely nothing will be changing about the composition of marmalade. Despite misinformation that has now spread far and wide, there is no requirement for retailers or producers to change an orange marmalade label to a citrus marmalade label; in fact, the orange marmalade that is sold in the Tea Room is able to be exported, and will still be able to be exported once these changes come into effect in the European Union. As the hon. Lady pointed out, marmalade is often already labelled as orange marmalade on UK supermarket shelves. This is in compliance with EU rules past and present, and many British manufacturers already meet international labelling standards voluntarily so that their products can be sold overseas. After our new sanitary and phytosanitary deal with the EU, we will simply support that trade by cutting unnecessary red tape with our largest market; we will not be subverting the meaning or composition of marmalade. I am sure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will welcome that news. As the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills said, marmalade is a product steeped in tradition and loved by millions at the breakfast table. It delivers a perfect blend of sweet and tangy fruit preserve, made from the juice and peel of citrus fruits simmered with sugar and water. The well-known version is made from bitter orange, most commonly using Seville oranges, but other citrus fruits such as lemons and limes make an equally delightful change and are becoming more popular. While the marmalade we know today is a symbol of British breakfasts, its origins stem from Portugal, where—as the hon. Lady said—it was made from quince and known as marmelada. It was then imported into England in the 16th century from Mediterranean countries. Modern marmalade has existed since the 1700s, when, in Scotland, water was added to make it less solid. It was the people of Scotland who then made marmalade a breakfast item, and the rest of Britain soon followed. Interestingly, the word “marmalade” in the English language comes from the French, which came from the Portuguese word “marmelada”. As the hon. Lady pointed out, it started with the Greek “melimilon”, which means sweet apple. As is the case in many such circumstances, marmalade is more international than I suspect many people who are using it as a symbol of UK patriotism understand. Our current domestic rules for marmalade are regulated by the Jam and Similar Products (England) Regulations 2003, which implemented the assimilated EU directive 2001/113/EC. Those rules help protect the quality and reputation of these important products and ensure that they meet consumer expectations. As the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills pointed out, our domestic rules lay down compositional standards for jam, jelly, marmalade and other similar products, meaning that marmalade and jelly marmalade must contain a minimum amount of citrus fruit—200 grams per kilogram of finished product—of which a set amount, 75 grams, must come from the endocarp. For those who do not know what the endocarp is, it is the segments and pulp of a citrus fruit. As the hon. Lady also pointed out, the soluble solids are also set at a minimum level of 60%. Very few other ingredients are permitted, and only in restricted amounts—for example, no food colours are allowed. I understand that the hon. Lady is very familiar with these regulations, because she was particularly active when changes to the minimum levels of sugar in jams were proposed by the UK in 2013. Food policy is devolved in the UK, but those standards are similarly accepted and set across all the devolved Governments. I am pleased to say that our domestic UK market for marmalade is buoyant—it is worth £67 million. Our leading UK brand, Robertson’s, delivered £9 million in sales in the last year, and Mackays—the fastest-growing marmalade brand—is now the UK’s second largest and Scotland’s No. 1, with 19% of market share in Scotland and 7.6% across the UK. These successful brands are excellent examples of products already referencing “orange marmalade” in the name. Marmalade is synonymous with Paddington. In fact, it was reported in 2014 that marmalade sales soared following the release of the “Paddington” movie—the so-called Paddington effect. As promised in our manifesto, this Government are focused on resetting our relations with the European Union and our closest trading partners. We have agreed with the EU to establish a common sanitary and phytosanitary area. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs met the French Agriculture Minister, Annie Genevard, she said that “our friendship is built on co-operation, on mutual benefit and on a shared understanding that our security and prosperity are bound together”. Alongside the Windsor framework, the SPS agreement will make moving goods easier, cheaper and more predictable. That is not just between the UK and the EU, but within the UK, too, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This is about more than trade statistics. Short, regulated, high-standard supply chains between trusted neighbours are the foundation of resilient food security. We expect the agreement to cover the breakfast rules, to which the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills referred in her contribution, including the jam and marmalade rules that I mentioned earlier. Members may be aware that in 2024, the EU updated its rules on jams and made some minor changes to marmalade provisions. In the EU, consumers use both “jam” and “marmalade” to refer to jams made from non-citrus fruits. That is what they have always done. To accommodate different linguistic preferences, the EU adapted its rules to allow the equivalent to marmalade to be used for the term jam, where that was commonplace in a member state’s market. That is an option that a member state can choose to implement. To avoid confusion with jam, the EU updated the reserved term of what we know here as marmalade to citrus marmalade, but producers can still simply name the flavour of the citrus fruit—orange marmalade or lemon and lime—and have consumers understand the precise nature of that product. The change will not apply to jelly marmalade, because there is no provision for jelly to be used interchangeably with marmalade, and so no confusion will arise. Aligning with the EU rules would mean that a small change to our marmalade description rules would have to be made, but as most jars already list the citrus used, the real-world impact would be minimal and consumers are unlikely to notice any difference.

There have been no changes to the amount of sugar required for marmalade to be marmalade. If the hon. Member is hinting, as I think she might be, that various nefarious producers are masquerading non-marmalade as actual marmalade in the UK sense of the word, she should probably tell me, or at least tell local authority trading standards officers what is going on in the local area. They can then test to see what spreads or preserves are masquerading as marmalade. I am happy to write to the hon. Lady, if she wants to hand me those questions. The Government are committed to supporting and protecting traditional British food products such as marmalade. We do that through meaningful regulation, which supports high food standards and covers marmalade. As I hope the hon. Lady knows, given the SPS deal, we will be aligning with some of the EU’s rules—as, indeed, we already do in respect of EU retained law—which ought to make it easier for consumers to know what they are buying. Question put and agreed to.

Rising input costs, including for fertiliser, have contributed to pressure on many farm businesses in recent years. We continually assess how global cost volatility affects farm productivity and the resilience of the sector.

I would love to—if the hon. Lady’s constituency was in England. Agriculture is a devolved matter, and she must therefore ask the Scottish Government.

The Government’s good food cycle strategy sees alternative proteins as a major opportunity, and not just for the economy but for health, sustainability and food resilience. We are backing the sector and working with the Food Standards Agency on novel food programmes to accelerate precision fermentation technology.

I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and congratulate the company he mentions, which is leading the way in this area. We have a major national hub for plant-based, cultivated and fermentation-based research and development, which is at the forefront of progress in this exciting new area.

Mr Speaker, all I can do is express my admiration of the hon. Gentleman’s ingenuity in ensuring that his question is in order.

Local markets are extremely important, particularly for maintaining food supply locally, and I am very interested in seeing what we can do to assist. Most markets are owned and operated by local authorities. I think the Covent Garden Market Authority is the only wholesale market that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs still looks after. I recognise the hon. Member’s comments on food security, but this country is 67% self-sufficient in food at the moment, or 77% if one takes out the produce we cannot grow, such as mangoes and bananas. Nobody is complacent about that, and we are looking at this very closely. The new farming and food partnership board will be looking at it, and the first sector we will look at is horticulture.

We recognise Billingsgate’s importance as a UK distribution hub for fish, and we will continue to monitor the proposed transition closely. We are engaging with the City of London Corporation on the proposed changes.

The Government recognise the importance of wholesale markets for the customers and communities they serve. We have limited recent evidence, however, of the impact that public ownership of markets has on food security.

It gives a new meaning to the London Irish.

I certainly welcome the opportunity to discuss my hon. Friend’s work in this area. We agree on the importance of the problems that the commission is looking to resolve and look forward to seeing its final report. The Government are working across Departments to improve access to healthy and affordable food. We have already introduced the junk food ad ban and mandatory targets for healthier food sales from our food industry, and we are committed to breaking the link between obesity and poverty.

The Government are taking strong action to improve access to good, nutritious food. We have extended eligibility for free school meals to half a million more children, and free, universal breakfast clubs are being introduced across the country. We are also reforming crisis support through the introduction of the crisis and resilience fund.

I have to say that a study of history demonstrates that collectivising the food system does not usually work.

We are well aware that events in the middle east are putting pressure on input prices. The hon. Lady mentions red diesel and fertiliser for the farming sector. I have talked to the chief executive officer of the Competition and Markets Authority. We are taking a close look at what is happening to ensure that there is no market abuse, and will keep a close eye on the situation as it develops. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already announced extra support for heating oil in rural communities. We keep a watching brief on this important matter.

We are committed to growing the agritech and engineering biology sectors, which are key to the industrial strategy. We are allocating £200 million to the farming innovation programme precisely for this purpose. I look forward to trying to visit my hon. Friend as soon as I am out that way.

In the comprehensive spending review, the Scottish Government received the largest real-terms increase in their funding since devolution. If they wish to support Scotland’s thriving fishing industry further, they have every right to do so.

I was going to get on to that, but I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point about trapping wild animals, which is why that is dealt with quite extensively in the animal welfare strategy that we published just before Christmas—I hope he acknowledges that that is the case. I was not trying to set one amount of cruelty against another; we try to minimise cruelty to animals in all contexts, which is what the Government’s animal welfare strategy seeks to make progress on. I was just about to say that although some importation of fur is legal, as we have heard today, there are some restrictions. The fur from cats and dogs can never be legally imported into the UK. Seal products can be imported and placed for sale on the UK market only in limited circumstances and subject to strict conditions linked to the rights of indigenous communities. By the way, I recognise the cynicism with which that was dealt with in contributions and acknowledge that that cynicism may well have some connection to reality. The Government recognise the strength of feeling on the issue from supporters as well as opponents of the fur trade—I must say I do not hear that much from supporters of the fur trade, but I am sure I will now I have said that. We recognise the state of public opinion in this area. We want to bring together a working group on fur, as set out in the Government’s animal welfare strategy, to seek involvement from both the industry and those who support restrictions to see what we can do ahead of deciding to deal with this in the future. In the animal welfare strategy, we have committed to publish a summary of responses to the call for evidence on the fur trade in Great Britain, which was conducted in 2021 under the previous Government and sought views from a range of stakeholders. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), pointed out how many responses were received to that. It is interesting being chivvied along by somebody whose party was in government for 14 years and made very little progress in this area. I do not mind being chivvied, but I look slightly askance at where the chivvying is coming from. My sister, the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston, took part in a process which got the Labour Government to ban fur farming within about three or four years of her beginning. We are less than two years into this Labour Government and we are doing a great deal across the animal welfare strategy for all animals, in whatever context they are found. I ask for a little patience to see how we can best take all this forwards. In the animal welfare strategy, we have committed to publish the opinion that DEFRA commissioned from the independent, expert Animal Welfare Committee on what constitutes the responsible sourcing of fur. As set out in the committee’s work plan, that review will consider available trade data on how much fur is imported to and exported from the UK. It will consider what welfare standards and other safeguards apply to that fur and how well they provide for the welfare needs of animals involved. The evidence that we will seek is what we can then act on once we have it. I hear hon. Members’ views of what the evidence is in this debate. We also must ask those involved in the fur trade to see what they would say so that we can make appropriate policy once we have the evidence in front of us. I recognise the strong interest in the Animal Welfare Committee’s opinion, as well as the summary of responses to the call for evidence from a wide range of interested parties. We will publish both the opinion and summary of responses as soon as we are able. Animal welfare is a global issue, and I take the points that have been made about its impact regarding trading rules. As set out in our animal welfare strategy, the Government are committed not just to raising standards in the UK, but to championing the importance of high animal welfare standards around the world. We will keep working collaboratively with our international partners as part of this work to promote robust standards nationally and internationally.

I am not going to clarify or not clarify that now because we are still in the middle of negotiations. I do not want to change the way that negotiations are working by commenting on them before we have final agreements, but I am quite happy to talk to my hon. Friend when all of that becomes much clearer. We will engage with the EU, which is a major source of fur imported into the UK, as it considers the findings of the European Food Safety Authority’s recently published scientific opinion on the welfare of animals kept for fur production, and the results of the European Commission’s 2025 call for evidence on the “Fur Free Europe” European citizens’ initiative. Those issues make this a bit of a moving feast, and we want to make sure that we get it right. We are also reviewing the findings of that report and will seek views from our working group on the evidence provided by the European call for evidence and the review, as well as the Animal Welfare Committee’s opinion. The Government were elected on a mandate to introduce the most ambitious plans in a generation to improve animal welfare, and that is exactly what we are going to do. We look forward to publishing and considering the findings of the Animal Welfare Committee, and to bringing together interested parties to explore concerns in this important area and the different ways in which those concerns can be addressed to ensure the welfare of animals.

Right honourable.

It is a great pleasure to serve, I think for the first time, under your chairmanship in Westminster Hall, Ms Jardine. We have had a consensus-driven debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for securing it. I note that she is extremely busy today because she also has a ten-minute rule Bill; since that deals with pets, we know that she has her speeches in the right order. She demonstrates through her work—we also heard it in her speech today—how much she cares for animals in whatever context, whether they are wild, domesticated or livestock. My hon. Friend represents a deep vein of concern that all of us have recognised that this country is well-known for: its concern for animals. We have a long and proud history of supporting animal welfare. The world’s first animal welfare law was passed here more than 200 years ago in 1822, so there is a long tradition that all of us draw on when thinking about these issues. The Government take that legacy seriously. Last December, we published our animal welfare strategy, which is the most ambitious programme in a generation. It is not just warm words; it is a real plan that is already in motion, with consultations launched on laying hens and lamb welfare. The UK has been at the forefront of animal welfare for generations. As many hon. Members have mentioned today—notably my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner), who had both done a little work and discovered this—it was my sibling, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), who introduced the private Member’s Bill that led to the ban on fur farming in this country. Some of the speeches I heard this morning had a familiar ring to them from the epic battles that my sister had to try to get her private Member’s Bill on the statute book. It was talked out by Members of the then Conservative Opposition, and it was only after that failure that the then Labour Government decided that they would take forward the ban on fur farming, because it had been overwhelmingly demonstrated that that was what the public wanted. That win was not easily gained. People who are thinking about how to change the law and the moral attitude on these things need to understand that private Member’s Bills, not least the ones brought to the House by hon. Members who care about these things, often have a very important legacy. They can persuade Governments that they ought to get on and do what is sometimes controversial, but more often than not right. We were the first country to ban fur farming and we did that when a ban was not popular—those arguments had to be made from scratch. That meant other countries then recognised the reality of what was going on and moved to ban it too. We have to recognise, however, that the number of countries that have banned it is still quite small and it remains actively pursued in many other countries. I suspect that the way the ban was done left the loophole that many hon. Members have pointed out: while animals can no longer be farmed for their fur in the UK, the import and sale of fur and fur products from both farmed animals and those hunted or trapped in the wild remain legal. We heard today that 95% of fur comes from farmed animals. People need to bear that in mind—this is not particularly an issue of trapping wild animals. If we read our history, we know that, particularly on the North American continent, a lot of wild animals were hunted nearly to extinction in earlier times.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I am not right honourable; my twin is, but I am not, just to put that on the record. I thank my hon. Friend for remembering the history, but I wonder whether he can imagine the kind of pressure that I might be under on this issue, subsequently.

Once my hon. Friend gets the letter off to us, she will certainly get a reply. The UK has a robust regulatory framework to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. DEFRA and the Marine Management Organisation work closely with the devolved Governments, local authorities and port health authorities to ensure that documents are appropriately checked and verified on seafood imports from all countries. If she wants to demonstrate cases where that is not happening, I would be very interested indeed to hear from her.

I am sorry to hear about the trauma related to my hon. Friend’s constituent. We recognise the RSPCA’s vital role in promoting animal welfare, but we do not have plans to extend statutory enforcement powers at this stage. Such powers are normally reserved for public bodies that have formal lines of accountability. We want to ensure that any future approach maintains clear oversight while preserving the RSPCA’s important charitable and advocacy functions.

We are aware of the welfare issues around fireworks, and we are looking at the evidence to see whether any such changes would actually make a difference.

Our animal welfare strategy sets out major reforms to improve the lives of millions of animals across the UK. Building on Labour’s strong record of driving up standards, a key part of this work is ending puppy smuggling. The strategy cracks down on low-welfare dog breeding, raises welfare standards for licensed breeders and creates a proper registration scheme for every breeder.

The first thing to say is that the SPS agreement is attempting to put right the Tories’ botched Brexit deal, which made it almost impossible for many people to export to our largest market. The idea is that this should be a new, mutually beneficial agreement to remove barriers, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman supports it. I know that the Select Committee report came out last night, and we will certainly respond to it in more detail. We are aware of the potential downsides if wrong deals are done, but we will not sign a deal that is not in the UK’s interests.

The milk price has certainly had a very difficult adjustment down, as part of the global glut in milk supply, so having been in a period of high prices, we are now in a different kind of period. What my hon. Friend is suggesting is almost a form of price control. I think the best thing we can do is think about fair-dealing obligations, and ensure that the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator does his job and makes certain that there are no unfair contracts in the market.

We have been quite clear that the new SFI should be simpler. We do not want it to be distributed in the way that it has been in the past; under the Conservatives, 25% of that scheme went to 4% of farms. That is why we have decided to open up the scheme first and foremost to small farms. We are in negotiations about the definition. All this will be set out in great detail, and there is transparency and simplicity ahead. We will not fall into the traps of creating schemes so complex that they cannot be properly administered by the Rural Payments Agency—that was the legacy that we received from the Conservatives.

The agreement between the EU and the UK to search for an SPS agreement recognised explicitly that there is a case for some exceptions, and we are negotiating that agreement as I speak. We are very well aware of the advantages that precision breeding gives to this country, which is why we laid a statutory instrument on plant precision breeding in November.

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s support for the Batters review, which is an important part of ensuring that the sector remains profitable. I am always listening to farmers. I have had many welcome propositions to visit farms, and I will see what I can do to fit him into the grand tour.

We are backing British farmers to build a profitable and sustainable future. We will put £11.8 billion into food and farming in this Parliament, including £200 million for cutting-edge innovations through the farming innovation programme. Last weekend, we announced £21.5 million backing 15 projects to turn new crops and new farm tech into ready-to-use tools that boost productivity.

I am yet again condemned to talk a lot about food while kept from tea, dinner, or whatever we want to call it. I also responded to a Backbench Business debate on farming and fishing, and did not get to have lunch, while everyone happily talked about food. It is a sort of torture from being in this particular job, but perhaps it will do well for my diet. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) on raising this issue. I think this has been one of the more popular Adjournment debates, given the interventions that we have heard from both sides of the House. That demonstrates what a place heart fish and chip suppers hold in everybody’s heart. I congratulate him on securing this Adjournment debate, which I am happy to answer. He is right to point out that not all the issues he has raised are directly for DEFRA, but I will do my best to answer some of them. I know the hon. Gentleman raised this issue in January, when he asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether the fish supper had had its chips—something that he has done again today. I note the various puns that people have come up with, and the somewhat dubious use of fish species to give the impression that other, unparliamentary words may have been said. Perhaps it is worth noting that the pollock fishery is doing quite well and has recently been reopened to commercial fishing after some good measures were taken, which have managed to revive that fishery, but I will not go into detail.

I will skate over the hon. Member’s attempt at a fish pun. I am happy to pass on his comments, which are not a matter for DEFRA, as he will know. As an ex-Treasury Minister, however, I can tell him that VAT is a large source of revenue, and fiddling around to make the system more complex is not often the best way of achieving an aim, but it is something that the Lib Dems do with rather a lot of things. His proposal would give away the simplicity of a sales tax, but I am happy to pass it on. We recognise that small hospitality businesses, including fish and chip shops, are under real pressure, which is why we have started to reform the business rates system to better support the high street. The Government are producing a new permanently lower tax for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties, including fish and chip shops. As we announced in the Budget, those new tax rates are worth nearly £1 billion a year in forgone tax revenue for the Treasury, and will benefit 75,000 properties. [ Official Report , 9 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 6WC.] (Correction) Fish and chip shops benefit from a £4.3 billion support package, protecting businesses from steep bill increases. Meanwhile, the smallest businesses will be protected by increases in the employment allowance from the effective national insurance contribution changes. Later this year, we will bring forward a new high streets strategy to reinvigorate our communities, and we will work with businesses and representative bodies to pull it together. That cross-Government strategy will consider what more we can do to support our high streets. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway spoke about the minimum wage. The Government accepted in full the Low Pay Commission’s recommendations on the minimum wage, to support the lowest-paid workers. As he knows, although that represents a cost for business, there is a balance here in terms of what the lowest-paid workers can get in exchange for their labour. When they get reasonable pay, they put that money into the local economy, so there is a balance—it is not all on one side. I am sure that he would not want the fish and chip sector to rely on very low wages in order to sustain itself. The balance that the Government have decided to strike is to accept the Low Pay Commission’s independently made recommendations on national minimum wage levels in full. We recognise that the sector is under pressure as a result of energy prices and are taking action to support it, such as through the permanent cut to business rates for hospitality announced in the recent Budget. The Government are concerned about the challenges that hospitality businesses can face in securing appropriate, fair and competitively priced energy contracts. To address that, the Government and Ofgem work closely together to identify and implement policy changes that can improve energy costs in the non-domestic market. Two years ago, Ofgem concluded an extensive non-domestic market review. Interventions to support businesses since that have included expanding the overarching standards of conduct for suppliers to all non-domestic customers, clearer rules on deemed rates and required standards for managing changes of occupancy. The Government have also recently announced a decision to directly regulate energy brokers and other third-party intermediaries where there is some evidence of abuse. Although third-party intermediaries can support businesses to secure more tailored and better value energy contracts, some rogue brokers exploit customers through excessive commissions or predatory sales tactics, which could prevent businesses from accessing competitive energy prices. Regulation will help to ensure that businesses can trust that brokers are acting in their best interests. If parliamentary time allows, the Government are working to have Ofgem ready to implement regulation in this area in the second half of 2027. In addition to new regulation, the Government have published a consultation with proposals to strengthen the powers of the Energy Ombudsman to ensure that consumers receive fairer and faster redress when things go wrong. Both those measures will improve competition in the energy market and ensure that non-domestic customers, such as those heating sunflower oil to fry chips in, are able to access free dispute resolution support. More than 600 hospitality small and medium-sized enterprises across England will receive free energy usage and carbon reduction assessments, and advice and guidance to help them cut carbon, cut costs and support increased productivity and growth. That project is expected to save the businesses an average of £5,000 a year, and it is already identifying key behavioural changes that can have a significant impact on energy bills. I hope the fish and chip sector can be made aware of that and exploit it. Fish and chip shops, along with all small and medium-sized enterprises, can access advice on reducing their energy bills and the business benefits of decarbonisation through the UK Business Climate Hub and the business growth service. Fish and chip shops may be small in size, but they embody something much bigger: the value of work, community and pride in British produce. While the last Government looked the other way as costs piled up, we are taking responsibility. We are backing the fishers and farmers who supply this great British staple, and we are backing the traders who serve it to millions. This Government will always be on the side of the workers who keep our plates full and keep the high streets alive. With the right support, these businesses can thrive, and this iconic part of our national life will be there for generations of Friday night fish and chip suppers in the future. Question put and agreed to.

We agree about the revival of pollock fishing. Obviously, I hope Hansard is listening extremely carefully—otherwise, we are all going to get into serious trouble. The sector was left to cope with rising costs and global shocks on its own for years, but this Government are taking a different approach. We understand that if we want these businesses to survive and thrive, we have to get involved. We need to support the fishers who land the catch, the farmers who grow the potatoes, and the high street traders who keep their doors open and deliver the final product millions upon millions of times every year, so maintaining a secure and affordable supply of fish is of key importance.

My hon. Friend is unique in England because she has the Kirkella deep sea trawler, which she has just mentioned. It can be out trawling and processing for months, and it brings back absolutely processed products. There are some issues with where the Kirkella can fish, given what is happening with fish supplies. I am happy to talk to her about this matter, and I hope to visit her constituency at some stage so that I can have a look at that incredible vessel. We are supporting the UK fleet to ensure that it has access to opportunities to catch cod and haddock. They are migrating north, which is one of the problems, as is the fact that they have been overfished. In 2026, the Government secured approximately £115 million-worth of fishing opportunities for these stocks. We are also taking steps to restore stocks to sustainable levels, so that we can continue harvesting them over the long term. For example, we have recently agreed measures such as seasonal closures with the EU and Norway to protect Northern Shelf cod, which is in a particularly parlous state. However, fish and chip shops are particularly reliant on imports of fish, as the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway said. Maintaining sustainable stocks of white fish in UK waters means that we have to import large volumes of white fish to meet demand. Relationships with trading partners such as Norway and Iceland, where these stocks can be fished, are therefore critical. Industries used to depend heavily on Russian frozen-at-sea fillets, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but costs have risen sharply following the war in Ukraine, because businesses have had to find alternative supplies to stay competitive. We are supporting the sector to seek alternative species and sources of fish in order to move away from any remaining Russian-caught fish in the supply chain, and we are working with the National Federation of Fish Friers and the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation to reintroduce British-caught rock salmon to the menu. Of course, I do not need to tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you cannot have a fish and chip supper without potatoes. From our seed and ware potato farms to our fresh and processing sectors, potatoes continue to play an important role in UK farming and food production. I was pleased to see that the Scottish planted area rose for the second year in a row, despite the challenges of the weather and the global disruptions faced by the whole arable community this year. The Government remain committed to working with the farming sector to deliver stability, confidence and growth. The Secretary of State set out at the Oxford farming conference that the new sustainable farming incentive offer for 2026 will be more focused, more transparent and fairer so that more people can benefit. We continue to invest in our farming sectors. The farming collaboration fund will provide up to £30 million over the next three years, delivering a new approach to farm collaboration and advice, and will back existing and new farmer groups, link them with expert support and help to create strong partnerships that drive growth and deliver environmental outcomes. We are putting partnership with the sector on a firmer footing. Farmers and food businesses will have a stronger voice at the heart of government. A new farming and food partnership board, chaired by the Secretary of State and me, will drive growth, productivity and long-term profitability. It will remove barriers to investment and improve how the supply chain works, complementing our work to develop a 25-year farming road map—a single long-term plan to bring together regulation, innovation, skills investment and environmental recovery. I certainly hope that we can make our farming sector as profitable and nimble as possible. The hon. Gentleman mentioned cooking oil, another important aspect of the production of fish and chip suppers. The price and supply of cooking oil is important. As he pointed out, Ukraine is a major supplier of sunflower oil, but supply chains were severely disrupted by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. As a result, the UK suspended tariffs on sunflower oil imports from 1 January 2023. Last year, we extended the tariff suspension until 31 December 2026, so that importers will continue to have tariff-free access to sunflower oil. We are currently seeking views on whether the suspension should be extended for another two years. Clearly, anyone listening to the debate, be they in the fish and chip sector or elsewhere, should get in touch with us if they have a view about that important issue.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec—my first time, I think; I am sure there will be many more. I thank the Petitions Committee and everyone who signed the petition for raising this important issue, especially the 164 from my own constituency of Wallasey. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee in the way that she did. The strength of public support behind the petition reflects a clear and shared concern. There was certainly cross-party consensus in the debate today about the state of sections of the rescue and rehousing sector, and I welcome this opportunity to discuss the proposal to introduce licensing and regulation for dog and cat rescues. I also want to reiterate the Government’s commitment to boosting animal welfare across the board. Animals play such an important role in our lives. They enrich our homes, support our wellbeing, and in return they deserve the highest standards of care and protection. We are a nation of animal lovers, so we have to ensure that our policies uphold our commitment to their welfare at all stages of their lives. The Association of Dogs and Cats Homes reported that almost 35,000 dogs and 69,000 cats were rehomed by its member organisations in 2024. It found that more pets were being abandoned due to the cost of living crisis, something that has been mentioned by hon. Members across the House during this debate. The Government are concerned about the neglect happening in organisations that pose as animal rescues and about the lack of transparency in the rescue and rehoming sector itself—again, an issue brought up by many who spoke in the debate today. I was horrified, as was everyone else in this debate, by the case in Billericay in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden); the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock) also referred to it. In May last year, 37 dogs were found dead in the care of a man who was pocketing donations for his so-called animal sanctuary. It was a shocking act of neglect and lack of humanity from the man entrusted to care for those animals. As the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay said in his wind-up speech, the man has pleaded guilty and is awaiting sentencing next week. That points to the fact that there are rules and regulations currently around the treatment of animals in rescues, even though there is not direct licensing in England at the moment. So it is not true that absolutely no rules apply, although the Government and I accept that we need to consider what we can do to increase the protection for animals that find themselves in that position. Organisations may present themselves as rescues but fail to meet even basic welfare standards. There are also cases of well-meaning individuals willing to take in animals in need, but despite good intentions they lack the capacity to care for the animals properly. We have to make sure that the public can trust in the safety and legitimacy of animal rescue shelters in their area. We are taking seriously the risks posed by illegitimate rescues, whether that is financial exploitation, inadequate disease control or the rehoming of animals with unmanaged behavioural issues, all of which are risks, as many right hon. and hon. Members pointed out in this debate. Most rescues operate responsibly and act with genuine intentions; we will crack down on those that do not. Last month we published our animal welfare strategy, which sets out the priorities that will deliver by 2030. It delivers on our commitments to introduce the most ambitious reforms to animal welfare in a generation. The Secretary of State launched the strategy at Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, an organisation that delivers crucial work rescuing and rehoming dogs and cats while also promoting best practice and knowledge, providing training and grant funding to animal rescue partners and offering online pet advice and training to anyone who needs it. The Government recognise the incredible work that people across the country, including those at Battersea, do to protect our animals. That work, often done on a voluntary basis, ensures that the animals taken into the care of those organisations are offered the opportunity of a forever home. We also value our strong relationships with those who work in these key sectors, and are proud of the work we have already achieved through partnerships with such key stakeholders. Our history of delivering positive outcomes for animals would not be possible without the dedication of the organisations and individuals we work with and their expertise across many species and complex areas. I am sure many Members will have attended the engaging Westminster Hall debate on the animal strategy last week. It further demonstrated the cross-party support and real dedication and commitment from across the country to ensuring the welfare of animals. As the pet population continues to grow, it is essential that our welfare standards keep pace, ensuring that all animals are safeguarded throughout their lives. To that end, the strategy will deliver on our manifesto commitments to end puppy smuggling and puppy farming. We will ensure that existing legislation is up to standard and work with local authorities and the sector to ensure that it is effectively enforced; as hon. Gentlemen and Ladies from across the House know, if the most perfect legislation in this area is not enforced, it might as well not exist. We have come from a period when enforcement suffered enormously because of cuts to local authorities. It is harder, and it has been much harder recently, for enforcement to happen in a reasonable way. We have to make sure that we close the loopholes. As part of the animal welfare strategy, we have been very clear that we will launch a consultation on licensing domestic rescue and rehoming organisations. That would ensure that set welfare standards were being met and enforced across the licensed rescue centres. That could include, for example, requirements for training, for the environment the animals are kept in and for standards of care. Today, hon. Ladies and Gentlemen from across the House have pointed out the need to ensure that we strike the right balance. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) talked in particular about a mistake that she said the Scottish Government made when introducing their licensing regime, which had the unintended consequence of closing down quite a lot of facilities that might have sensibly been able to survive. It is important that this Government learn the lessons of the unintended errors made in trying to regulate appropriately in such a diverse sector. The hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock made a similar point in his remarks. We do not want to have such a fantastically sophisticated licensing regime that we put a lot of very good organisations that are doing a valuable job out of business. We are aware that many small rescue and rehoming organisations rely solely on donations and volunteer efforts. Any new licensing framework must therefore be proportionate, and we will carefully consider the variations in types of rescues and animals that they look after. I know that many of our constituents will be keen to engage with the consultation at the appropriate point. We will share details about that, including scope and timings, as the policy is developed. The hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock asked a series of questions about that, but many of those questions are on points that the consultation will be trying to tease out, so that we can come to an appropriate decision about the best way to license and regulate in this area and we do the most good and the least harm. I want to be clear that animal rescue organisations, as we have all contemplated following the horrible events in Billericay, must already meet statutory welfare requirements. Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, any person responsible for an animal, whether on a permanent or temporary basis, has a duty to ensure its welfare. Companion animal rescue and rehoming organisations in England and Wales must therefore comply with the statutory welfare requirements set out in the 2006 Act. Members of the public can also check whether a rescue centre is a member of the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes. As has been pointed out in this debate, that group has set clear standards for animal assessments, neutering and rehoming procedures to which all its members adhere. The Government will continue to promote the work of that group and to encourage the public to source pets from responsible rescue and rehoming organisations in the United Kingdom. Many animal welfare organisations work hard to promote more responsible sourcing practices, and we will continue to promote their efforts. We know that some individuals choose to rescue pets from abroad. Bringing animals from overseas has increased animal health and welfare risks. We will continue to develop the evidence base on the welfare issues associated with international rescue and rehoming. We have already commissioned the University of Liverpool to assess the impact on dog welfare, both for the dogs rehomed from abroad and for the domestic population. We expect to publish that research later this year. I hope that everyone will agree that we must move forward, both with our banning of puppy farming and with the licensing of rescues, so that we modernise our animal welfare laws in this very important area and ensure that all animals, whether they lose their first home and must be rehomed or not, can look forward to acceptable standards of care and welfare before they find their new forever home.

This debate goes to the heart of something that this Government care deeply about: the future of British farming and the food on British tables. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) for securing the debate, and I thank all Members for their contributions. Let me be direct about what we are trying to balance in this area. British farmers produce most of our food: two thirds of it in 2024, which means that 65% of everything we eat is produced in this country. When it comes to what can actually be grown or reared in this country, that figure rises to over three quarters: 77%. In other words, we do not grow our own bananas or mangoes, and we cannot grow our own citrus fruits except in particularly hot weather, so we have to import them. The hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) used the phrase “carcase balance”, which is important to think about when we talk about the balance between exports and imports. In the UK, we eat only particular bits of the animal, not all of it. It is useful to be able to export the bits that the British do not particularly want to eat, so the farmer who produces the animal gets more of a return than they would if those markets were not open. The potential benefits for UK producers of open trading markets for such things are very great indeed. Although I will spend much of the rest of the debate talking about standards for imports, we have to remember that exports are also important to our home-grown industry. Exports are harder to gain if we are too closed about the imports we allow in our trade deals, because trade is a two-way street. I caution everyone to think about that balance, as well as thinking about what we would like to see in trade deals: it is real, it exists and we ought to take it seriously. We have to remember that we are a trading nation. Trade gives families access to food that we cannot grow here; it keeps prices affordable; it means that we can get food out of season all year round; and it provides a safety net when supply chains are disrupted by disease, drought or conflict. Although being able to grow most of what we want to produce here is an important part of food security, so is having reasonable, predictable and acceptable access to other markets so that we can import when we have to, if there is a particular issue. The question is not whether we trade, but how we trade and on whose terms. This Government have been clear that we will not sacrifice British standards on the altar of trade deals. All imports must meet UK food safety requirements, and that is not going to change. We have been clear that hormone-treated beef and chlorine-washed chicken, which hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned, are and will remain banned in the UK. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) pointed out, that is because such treatments are designed to hide what has happened as a result of production methods. We are firm that we will not allow that. There are also potential issues with the human food chain, and we do not wish to put our consumers at risk. We understand that there can be frustrations when farmers here are held to higher welfare standards than some competitors abroad. Sometimes there are good reasons for those differences. We have not heard about any of that in the debate today, but farmers across the world face different geographical environments, different climate conditions and different disease risks. Practices such as sow stalls and battery cages, however, are banned in this country for good reason. We will not pretend that every difference in global standards is acceptable just because it happens to be legal elsewhere; we spend our time trying to persuade other countries to see the sense in adopting our higher food production and livestock standards. As we have said in the trade strategy, we will not lower food standards. We will continue to uphold high standards in animal welfare. We will always consider whether imports have an unfair advantage and what the potential impact of trade agreements on UK food production could be. That is why, in our trade deal with India, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire pointed out, we kept tariffs on pork, chicken and eggs: because we were concerned about the welfare standards. We used the powers we have, and we will do so again where our farmers and our values are at stake. In the India deal, we also secured commitments to co-operate on animal welfare—the first time that India has ever agreed to that in a trade deal. The independent Trade and Agriculture Commission recognised that achievement in pursuing our policy on animal welfare protections as a part of our trade deals. We have a proud history of leading the way in ensuring the very best care for animals. In December, we published our animal welfare strategy, to which hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred. It will improve the lives of millions of animals in the UK. We recognise that animal welfare is a global issue, and we will continue to champion high animal welfare standards around the world, promoting robust standards nationally and internationally. Our recent trade deal with Korea includes comprehensive language on animal welfare that goes beyond anything that Korea has agreed to date. We will continue to strengthen co-operation and information exchange on this globally important issue. In his opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire mentioned eggs from Ukraine. We are 90% self-sufficient in eggs in this country. The Ukrainian trade in eggs is about 1% of our supply. That is done partially as support for Ukraine’s industry and economy in the global situation in which it finds itself, at war with Russia. Despite that, I have met both Ukrainian Agriculture Ministers and they are working hard to ensure they can come into compliance with EU regulations in egg production as soon as possible. We are helping them to try to do so. The debates that we are having on animal welfare with respect to egg imports are real, and they are happening. I have raised them personally with both Ukrainian Agriculture Ministers. Protecting standards is not enough on its own, however. We are backing British farmers to create a productive, profitable and sustainable future for farming. We believe that support is essential for our country’s economic growth and food security. Through new technology, streamlined regulation and nature-friendly farming schemes, we are helping farmers to produce food for the nation. A stronger and more productive domestic farming sector is in our national interest and will keep high-quality British food on the shelves for consumers. The heart of our approach is working in partnership with the sector, which is why the Secretary of State and I are grateful to Baroness Batters for her recent review of farming profitability. We are taking forward a series of measures from the review to deliver practical support and long-term certainty for farmers. We recently announced a new farming and food partnership board as part of our actions. This brings farmers, processors and retailers together, because food security is not just about what happens on the farm; it is about the whole food chain, all the way from the farm to the fork. Farmers will have a seat at the table when policy is developed, and their voice will shape what the Government do. Different parts of our food system face different challenges—the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) talked about what is happening in the dairy sector at the moment—but they also face different opportunities. Together, we intend to develop sector plans that target growth in sectors such as horticulture and poultry first, sectors in which there is significant untapped potential to increase home-grown production. This will be followed by other sectors in which there is real scope to grow more of our own food, because when British farming thrives, consumers benefit, with affordable, high-quality food on their tables. As well as supporting producers at home, we are working to extend the international reach of British food and drink. We will continue to focus on new markets for the sector. We have 16 agrifood attachés around the world opening doors for British producers. Last year alone, their work removed barriers, creating £127 million of export value for our home-grown food producers. That includes opening British pork access to Mexico and removing costly barriers for British dairy exports to Egypt. This year, the Secretary of State and I will be leading dedicated trade missions to showcase British food and drink overseas and boost our exports. Our high standards are something we should be proud of; the reputation of our top-quality produce helps us to unlock new markets, and many of those we deal with see UK food as at the top of the quality mark and want to have access to it. Closer to home, the majority of our agrifood trade is with the EU, including around 70% of our agrifood imports. That is why the SPS agreement with the EU to slash red tape for the businesses that trade most with our nearest neighbours is so important, as it will make agrifood trade in our biggest market cheaper and easier to engage with. The agreement will bring down costs for UK producers and remove most of the regulatory trade barriers. We have been clear about the importance of high animal welfare standards, and the EU has accepted that the UK will need to retain its own rules in some areas. As in all trade deals secured by this Government, we will maintain red lines in our negotiations. We are a nation that has always led on animal welfare. In 1999, the Labour Government banned sow stalls before most of the rest of the world had heard of them. I understand the issues that the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) raised and I want to reassure him that we are working closely with the industry on transition in some of the areas mentioned in the current animal welfare strategy, such as banning farrowing crates and moving away from enriched cages for hens. We do not want the law of unintended consequences, but we do want increases in animal welfare. This Government will not allow that legacy to be undermined through the back door by trade policy. We will protect our farmers, uphold our standards and back British food at home and abroad. That is what food security means, and that is what this Government will deliver.

I had discussions with the Cornish Fish Producers’ Association and the Young Fishermen’s Network on the quay down in Newlyn. I missed the hon. Gentleman at 5 am! Perhaps we can meet another time when I am down there. The bid has been well thought through in principle, and I am impressed with it. However, we have to wait until the fund is properly launched. At this stage, I cannot say anything other than how impressed I was with the bid. Decisions will be announced after our consultation with the industry is over. I am sure that the devolved Governments will be doing similar things with their parts of the fund. In the negotiations on the fishing opportunities for 2026, we have been able to agree about 640,000 tonnes of UK fishing opportunities, worth roughly £1.06 billion, based on historical landing prices, including 610 tonnes, worth roughly £960 million, secured through negotiations with the EU, Norway and other coastal states. We have secured these deals against a very difficult backdrop of challenging advice for a variety of stocks, including northern shelf cod, against a legacy of 14 years of mismanagement, broken promises and neglected coastal communities. Our approach to the negotiations is based on rebuilding trust with fishing communities, securing decent jobs, and restoring fish stocks so that our seas can support jobs and coastal communities for generations to come. We have worked closely with those in the sector to discuss the science—an approach the Conservative party refused to take, preferring to negotiate headlines rather than outcomes—as well as to understand their perspectives and requirements, and help them prepare for the impact of quota decisions. We have achieved a number of resulting wins in this year’s negotiations, including more opportunities for our sea bass fishery, a commercially viable total allowable catch for Irish sea herring, valuable plaice and sole quota transfers, and flexes in the channel and the Celtic sea. The total allowable catches agreed with the EU and Norway have enabled the continuation of the mixed demersal fishery in the North sea, avoiding the cliff edges and uncertainty that characterised negotiations year after year. We have agreed a new management model for North sea herring, which will help to ensure the long-term sustainability of the stock. We have increased opportunities for our commercial pollack fishery, following two years of being unable to target the stock, and we have achieved a significant increase in the UK bluefin tuna quota from 63 tonnes to 231 tonnes. We need to continue to focus on working closely with the industry to improve the scientific understanding of fish stocks and consider further improvements to management measures that protect fish stocks, and support good jobs and strong coastal communities for the long term. At the end of his speech, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked me about Norwegian access. We believe that the UK-Norway bilateral arrangements are fair and balanced, but I appreciate that some individual UK stakeholders may favour changes to the current arrangements. We take that into account in the negotiations each year and keep it under review. It is important to look at these deals in the round, because what is given away may also be swapped in the quota swaps, and therefore there are trade-offs. However, if he and those in the industry in his constituency feel that something is going wrong or that too much has been given away, he must let me know so we can ensure that the quota swaps are working as intended. We are working at pace towards a new sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU, and are aiming to have legislation in place by the end of 2027. The new agreement will slash red tape for UK seafood exporters and reopen the market for GB shellfish from certain domestic waters, which will make it easier to sell British fish to our largest trading partner and strengthen the economies of our coastal communities. We are supporting offshore wind development as a key part of achieving the Government’s mission of making Britain a clean energy superpower. The transition to clean power must be fair and planned, and done with, not to, our coastal communities. As part of addressing that, the Government for the first time gave a strategic steer to the Crown Estate on key risks and issues associated with areas of potential future offshore wind development in the English sea. This steer, provided through the marine spatial prioritisation programme, is helping to guide the Crown Estate in identifying suitable areas for future offshore wind that avoid Government priorities such as the fishing industry and environmentally sensitive areas. I hope to continue to work closely with those in the fishing industry to ensure that their voice is heard when we discuss how these things are done. I am conscious of time, so I will finish by saying that bringing about change is incumbent equally on the fishing industry and on the Government. We want to work together to bring about positive change. We know that fishing faces many challenges, but with close collaboration, openness to innovation and a Government willing to take responsibility rather than make excuses, there are reasons to be optimistic about the future of fishing—and I certainly am.

I am a very generous person, and I am more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman’s representative bodies. He knows that fishing is devolved, but I understand that some issues are dealt with nationally, albeit not by my Department. Such issues are dealt with by my previous Department, the Home Office, but not by my current Department—I am obviously talking about the issue of visas, which been raised by several hon. Members on both sides of the House. I do not want to give away internal Government issues, but I have a meeting in the diary with the relevant Home Office Minister, where I will discuss some of these issues. Although I cannot promise what the outcome will be, I can promise that the industry will be properly represented. I know that this matter is also relevant to aquaculture and processing, so I am more than happy to take into account any information that hon. and right hon. Members wish to give me ahead of that meeting. Having met some members of the industry around the country, I understand the pressures. I have met many representatives of the fishing industry since assuming my role in September, and I had a hugely informative visit to Newlyn in December. I have been invited to Bridlington, to Shetland and to Newhaven, so I have an entire tour of the country coming up. I may not be present in the House for a long time, because I will be yomping around the coast to have a look at what is going on in both big and small sectors of the industry. The industry is very complex, and it is impossible to make generalised comments about it. What is important for an inshore small boat will be very different from what is important for a deep sea trawler that spends many months out at sea; I understand the differences. On that note—having plotted my escape from this place for a few nice visits; I know the importance of seeing and understanding for myself the diversity of the industry, which sits at the heart of our national identity as an island nation—let me say that I am grateful for the invaluable contributions of my fellow coastal MPs on both sides of the House, who have brought the views of their coastal and fishing communities to the Floor of the House. I am listening. I know that I will not be able to please everybody, but I will do my best to understand the issues that are being faced. The development of the fishing and coastal growth fund has been welcomed in some places and condemned in others. We have been working with the industry to understand the priorities of fishing and coastal communities, and to ensure that they help shape the fund so that it can drive growth for the future. Several themes are emerging from the initial engagement, including the importance of developing the industry’s workforce for the future—something that has featured in discussions on the Floor of the House—making port-side improvements and ensuring that funding goes to all parts of the industry, including small-scale fishers as well as larger parts of the industry. The issues of education, entry to theusb industry and ongoing training have also come up. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) did not miss her chance to suggest that Cornwall should have a ringfenced allocation from the fishing and coastal growth fund—a request that I heard when I visited Newlyn. I am very interested in using the fund to ensure that money is made available to those who know their areas best, so that it can be put to best use. That does not always happen with Government funding. I do not want the money to go to people who are very good at making bids for funds; if possible, I want it to go to the places where it will do the most good, so I am in the market for listening to suggestions on how that can be properly brought about. After all, we have 12 years to try to make a difference, and I hope that the fund can do that.

It is a pleasure to respond to an extremely good debate, with many Members reflecting the issues that they have discovered in their own constituencies and bringing them to the Floor of the House, as we expect them to do. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for his tireless commitment to championing the fishing industry and for persuading the Backbench Business Committee to grant this debate in the Chamber. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) has worked closely with the right hon. Gentleman in his work on the fishing industry, and she is delighted to be here, ensuring that an important local industry to her constituency is properly represented and reflected on the Floor of the House. Fishing is an incredibly important industry to the vitality of many coastal communities. It is culturally and socially important. It is a way of life passed down from generation to generation, and it is evident in a town’s built environment, whether it is the jetties and marinas, the seafronts where the boats moor or the fish huts that dot many a local promenade, not least where I was born and grew up, as the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) was so generous to point out in his contribution. The key to achieving the collaboration we need to ensure the future of our fishing industry is working with those who know the industry best to deliver opportunities for the future. We also have to remember that fishers contend with tough working conditions. Many hon. and right hon. Members on both sides have raised that point. It is a difficult and dangerous life, but it is often undertaken with passion and commitment. I pay tribute to all those who have been injured or tragically lost their lives at sea. Fishers provide us with the world-class fish and seafood that the UK is rightly revered for. I pay tribute to the RNLI, which often goes out in dangerous conditions to rescue people and save lives at sea. I commend the ongoing efforts of the fishing industry to improve safety—those efforts must continue as a priority. The fishing industry is operating in a challenging environment, as we have heard from Members from all parts of the House, but many highly promising areas in the industry present opportunities, and we wish to enable the industry to grasp them. It is the case, though, that sectors within the fleet are struggling. There is increasing competition for marine space. Our marine spatial prioritisation programme helps to mitigate that, and I thank industry leaders for the data they have shared and contributed to, which has hugely improved the programme’s insights into this key challenge. Pressure on stocks means that we must carefully manage fisheries, including in some cases through significant reductions in total allowable catch and changes to other measures. The sector contends with barriers to exports, and Labour’s work to develop new markets and ease the administrative burden of trading in a highly perishable foodstuff is complex and will take time, but that work has begun. Meanwhile, as we have heard, in particular from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and other Members, it can be hard to recruit staff, and entry into the industry requires significant investment. In that context, the ability to change and adapt is important, and fishing has a good record in doing that. Fishing businesses have to mitigate the impacts on stocks that are under pressure, adapt to changing distributions of fish because of climate change, respond to changing consumer demands, adopt new technologies and develop new skills. It is a task that this Government will continue to support the industry in navigating. We are supporting and encouraging the industry to organise and collaborate, to plan confidently and to invest for the long term. I will continue to work with industry experts—big and small—who know the sector best in order to build a thriving and sustainable fishing industry.

There are no current plans for that, but I am happy to consider it given my hon. Friend has raised it. I now turn to how we protect our precious wildlife. As our understanding of animal welfare continues to evolve, the law must keep pace with the latest evidence to prevent wild animals from suffering cruelty, pain or distress. Therefore, we will ban trail hunting. The nature of trail hunting makes it difficult to ensure that wild mammals are not put at risk, and we intend to launch a consultation very soon. We will end the use of snare traps because they are indiscriminate, can catch pets and protected wildlife, and cause terrible suffering. We are also among the only European countries without a closed season for hares, which means that young hares can be left motherless and vulnerable. We will therefore consider introducing a closed season, which should reduce the number of adult hares shot during the breeding season. We are giving farm animals greater freedom and dignity. The Government value the excellent work of British farmers who produce high-quality food to some of the highest welfare standards in the world, which we are rightly proud of. Ending the use of intensive confinement systems such as cages and crates is a key priority. We have launched a consultation on phasing out colony cages for laying hens and plan to consult on transitioning away from farrowing crates for pigs, but we will do that in conjunction with the industry, because we understand the nature of the costs and the transition time required to move to higher welfare standards. We have already launched a consultation on improving the welfare of lambs during castration and tail docking, and I will continue to work with the industry to support voluntary efforts to move away from the use of fast-growing meat chicken breeds. We also want to improve welfare throughout an animal’s life, so we are taking action at the time of killing. Following advice from the Animal Welfare Committee’s report last year, we propose to consult on banning the use of carbon dioxide gas stunning for pigs. We will introduce humane slaughter requirements for farmed fish into legislation and publish guidance on humane methods of killing decapods. We are committed to working together with the farming community to maintain and enhance our world-class animal health and welfare standards. I will sit down so that my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire can wind up.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) for securing the debate. I am sure we can all agree—as virtually everyone has said—that we are a nation of animal lovers. We love our pets, we look after our farm animals and we want to ensure that we protect the nation’s wildlife. We have a long and proud history of supporting animal welfare. Animals are at the heart of British culture and identity and our relationship with them runs deep. Protecting them matters to this Government. We published our new animal welfare strategy for England in December, setting out a clear long-term plan to safeguard standards and deliver the most ambitious reforms to animal welfare in a generation. This is a comprehensive package of reforms, which will improve the lives of millions of animals across the UK. There were questions, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), about timings. This is a comprehensive strategy, although I note other contributors wanted more to be included. We clearly cannot implement it all in one go and we have begun with some early consultations to bring in the first steps. Some issues in the strategy will require primary legislation; others require consultation and tweaks. It is a progressive approach to introducing it across the piece, as we go through this Parliament. There will not be one great big Bill; there will be a range of things to get on with before the primary legislation that will be necessary to deal with some issues, as many contributors to the debate know. People across the country already do exceptional work to improve the lives of our animals, including farmers, vets, volunteers at rescue centres and many more. The strategy is about backing that work with support from Government, clear standards and practical action. This Labour Government want a strategic approach rather than the piecemeal interventions we have seen in the past. We are not worried about having primary legislation to which people can attach amendments that we can argue about and discuss as the Bill goes through the House. We will take a more strategic approach that targets action where it is most needed. We will strengthen enforcement and will support animal keepers and owners to do the right thing. Legislation alone is not always enough to change behaviour. That is why we must continue to work with scientists, industry and civil society to ensure that the reforms lead to better outcomes for all animals. The animal welfare strategy builds on the Government’s proven track record in delivering reforms, ranging from introducing new world-leading standards for zoos to tightening the laws around livestock worrying. In November, we also published a strategy on replacing the use of animals in science, which set out how we would partner with scientists to phase out animal testing. Our strategy sets out the priorities we will address, focusing on the changes and improvements we aim to achieve by 2030 and the steps we will take to deliver our manifesto pledges to ban trail hunting and the use of snare traps, and to end puppy farming and smuggling. Pets play an important role in many people’s lives, providing companionship and joy to millions of people, but we know that loopholes in the current system can mean some animals are bred in and sourced from low-welfare settings. We will end puppy smuggling by consulting on reforming dog-breeding practices, improving their health and welfare and moving away from practices that lead to poor welfare and unwell animals. The brachycephalic issues spoken about by our in-house vet, the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), are obviously included when dealing with some of these concerns. We will take steps to implement the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025, closing loopholes in pet travel rules that have been exploited by unscrupulous traders. We will use the powers to prohibit dogs and cats being brought into the country with non-exempted mutilations, such as docked tails and cropped ears. We will also consider new licensing requirements for domestic rescue and rehoming organisations, to ensure that rescue centres have the right checks in place to protect the welfare of the animals they care for. We will consult on a ban on the use of electric-shock collars due to the possible harm those devices cause to our pets. I hear what hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies on both sides of the House have said about that ban, and the firm view that we should have one. We just want to check through the consultation that nothing significant has changed since the last one was done in 2018, and we will act on the results. Alongside that, we will continue to promote responsible dog ownership to protect public safety and we are looking forward to seeing the recommendations from the reconvened dog ownership taskforce. Let me mention cats, as they came up in several contributions, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire and from my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles). We do not plan to regulate cat breeding as a separate activity at the current time. Anyone in the business of selling cats as pets should already have a pet selling licence, and we will work with the sector to improve take-up. We will also work with the sector to build an evidence base to see whether there is an increasing need to go further. We have our eyes on it, but there are no current plans to include cats in some of the other regulations for dogs.

Yes, nearly over. The UK has always been a major trade hub for wine. We are the world’s second largest importer of wine by value and volume, bringing in an estimated 1.7 billion bottles every year. The UK is also the 11th largest exporter of wine, so it is very much a two-way trade. The scale and connectivity matter. The UK’s role as a global hub anchors expertise and investment across bottling, logistics, retail and export, and increasingly, as we have heard from my hon. Friend today, in viticulture. Our domestic wines have earned a reputation for exceptional quality, as demonstrated by the nine gold medals awarded to English wines at the 2025 International Wine and Spirit Competition in London. Nyetimber’s head winemaker, Cherie Spriggs, was named sparkling winemaker of the year for a second time, which is an exceptional achievement. She was the first person outside Champagne to win the award, thereby giving some credence to my hon. Friend’s claim that the only champagne to drink at the moment, even if we cannot call it that, is English sparkling wine. Such achievements show the quality that British producers can attain when talent, innovation and investment come together and are applied to British viticulture. Across the country at fantastic vineyards such as Chapel Down’s Kit’s Coty in the constituency of my hon. Friend, the production of award-winning wines is translating into good jobs, as he pointed out, as well as tourism growth and renewed confidence in local, often rural, economies. We recognise the challenges the industry faces: a tougher trading environment, rising costs and tariffs. Yet through working in partnership with the industry, we intend to help it seize opportunities and ensure growth is felt by farmers and communities alike. Exports of domestic wines are gaining real momentum. English and Welsh wines now ship to 45 countries, with exports more than doubling their share of total sales from 2021 to 2024. The 16 agrifood attachés from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs play a key role in this success by promoting UK wine, removing market access barriers and helping businesses navigate consumer demand and import procedures. The Government are supporting WineGB to boost the global profile of English and Welsh sparkling wine at Wine Paris in February. We want to ensure that British producers have a strong, confident presence in key global markets. Our trade deals have enabled greater access to international markets for UK wines, whether through simplified customs procedures under our recently announced free trade agreement with the Republic of Korea or the approval of a greater range of winemaking practices for exports to Australia and New Zealand. The Government are working to make it easier and less costly for UK wine producers to do business abroad. The success story of the UK wine sector does not start overseas; it begins at home. Industry forecasts suggest that the retail value of English and Welsh wines could reach £1 billion by 2040, but I wonder whether we can get there faster. With more than 1,100 vineyards, and production exceeding 10 million bottles, viticulture is one of the fastest-growing agricultural sectors in the country, and the Government are committed to supporting that growth. Through the farming innovation programme, we have committed at least £200 million through to 2030 to support viticulture. That will help producers invest, innovate and plan with confidence. On whether we can change the regulations on single-serve wine portions, there has not yet been a decision on reforms, but we are keen to engage on ideas about innovation, including on that issue. I ask my hon. Friend to please keep in touch with me and the Department on that innovation and others so that we can see whether it is worth our while changing regulations that may have become out of date. Wine tourism is a vital part of the success, as my hon. Friend pointed out. In 2023, about 1.5 million visits were made to vineyards and wineries, and tourism accounted for roughly a quarter of income for many estates. This is about jobs, economic opportunity and resilient rural economies. The Government are committed to supporting that vision, including by backing regional identity initiatives. Our ongoing efforts will ensure that regions gain the recognition that they deserve, both at home and abroad. My hon. Friend mentioned cellar door relief. I would certainly welcome any data that he and the industry can provide me with so that we can see how we might deal with that. We have to get evidence before we can make changes to the way that such relief is given. If evidence exists out there, I strongly suggest that my hon. Friend gets in touch with the wine-growing bodies so that they can present it to us and we can consider it. My hon. Friend mentioned packaging reforms. The Government are committed to moving towards a circular economy that delivers sustainable growth and reduces waste. Our collection and packaging reforms, including extended producer responsibility and the deposit return scheme, are designed to drive investment in modern recycling infrastructure. Extended producer responsibility is already used successfully across more than 30 countries and is a proven way to increase reusable packaging in the market and improve long-term environmental issues. I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but we have to move forward and try to get to a place where we can recycle much more packaging to ensure it does not go to landfill. The Government recognise the pressures that alcohol producers face, and we want to assist in any way we can. The Government committed to upskilling the workforce, and we are working closely with Skills England and the Department for Education on the growth and skills levy, which includes apprenticeships. If my hon. Friend wants to convene the industry to talk about how that might be applied with respect to viticulture, I am more than happy to hear what he has to say when he has done that work. The growth of the UK wine industry is impressive, but we are only just beginning to realise its full potential. It is about far more than bottles sold or medals won, although they are very important and we celebrate them; it is about skilled jobs, thriving rural economies and the confidence that comes when communities seek growth and opportunity on their doorstep. This Labour Government believe in backing British industry, supporting working people and building an economy that works for every part of the country. That is why, as a Minister, I am committed to working closely with the sector to drive innovation, expand exports and ensure that rural communities across the UK fully share the benefits of this success story. Question put and agreed to.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) on securing the debate and on his work in championing the UK’s growing wine industry. It is particularly good that he has managed to get it in dry January.

It is a pleasure to serve under your excellent chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I too enjoyed being a member of the Treasury Committee—as the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) still does—to which you always make a trenchant and relevant contribution. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) on successfully securing this debate—I think she is on the Treasury Committee as well. There seems to be a preponderance of current or ex-Treasury Committee members in this debate, which perhaps suggests that the issue before us, food inflation, is, as anyone who has listened with an open mind to all the excellent contributions will realise, quite a complex issue. There is no single cause for the fact that, in the UK, food inflation for the last period has been running about 1% above CPI inflation rates. Many Members, from all parts of the House, have talked about the effect that that has had on their constituents. This debate reflects real concerns about food inflation and cost of living pressures that are affecting millions of households across our country. Those pressures have been building for years, and too many families were left to face them alone under the previous Government. Tackling the cost of living remains at the heart of what this Labour Government hope to achieve in our time in office. Food poverty is not an abstract issue, as many of us who visit food banks in our constituencies know; nor is food insecurity, which now touches more than 14 million people in our country—not a small number, and a very sobering one when we think about it. In my constituency, I see parents skipping meals so that their children can eat. I see many others relying on food banks to get by. When I was first elected, we did not have any food banks in Wallasey; we now have too many. All are doing a fantastic job; I pay tribute to the work that Wirral food bank does, and to the many volunteers who run social supermarkets and food clubs in the constituency, which have grown up to meet need as it has arisen. I also pay tribute to Feeding Britain, which was started by Frank Field, who was my constituency neighbour. He perceived this issue and how much it was growing, and in his usual way he decided that he was going to do something practical and see what he could do to help. He did, and Feeding Britain now makes an important and interesting contribution to the work we are all doing to bring about this Labour Government’s manifesto commitment to ending the mass use of emergency food parcels by the end of this Parliament.

I was thinking, when I attended his funeral a few years ago, what an effect he had at a grassroots level with his vision for getting stuff done. There are many hundreds of thousands of people up and down the country who, even though they might not know it, owe him a debt of gratitude. The actions we have taken start with easing cost of living pressures and raising living standards. It is obvious, as many colleagues on the Government side of this Chamber have said, that one of the basic causes of food insecurity is the price of food, but it is also people’s inability to have enough income to do one of the most basic things in life: putting food on their family’s plates—or their own. Analysis demonstrates that that difficulty particularly affects those with children and those who have disabilities or other issues around being able to earn a reasonable amount of money if they are in work, so that they can cover basic costs. The Trussell Trust demonstrated, as my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) said, that a third of those who attend food banks for emergency food parcels are in work. I found it interesting to hear Opposition Members say that increases in the national minimum wage or in the money that people earn for working were actually part of the problem. Those who do low-wage work also have to eat. Although the increases add a cost, we have to appreciate that maintaining a very low-pay society will not help us get out of this problem.

The right hon. Gentleman is correct at the margins, but I am also correct that having a very low-wage economy and not increasing the national living wage does not have a positive effect. As with all economic analysis, some of this is about the balance and which effect comes out top. We have tried many years with chronic low pay and very few rights at work, so we are now going to try something different. On the Government Benches, we think that people deserve a living wage for doing a full-time job. That is how we will get out of this situation. The Government are taking a strategic, joined-up approach to tackling the cost of food to build a more resilient and fairer food system for the long term. I hope to reassure the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) that we are joining up across Government and it is not just DEFRA talking about this. Just this morning, I joined my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy) at a food poverty conference hosted by the Department for Work and Pensions, which brought together representatives from local authorities, the third sector and civil society. That is where we can forge local, practical solutions to some of the problems that we have all perceived in our constituencies. The Government’s job in that circumstance is to try to facilitate and empower those things to happen, rather than have a top-down approach that mandates what to do. There are certain things that we can have an effect on, and there are others that we need to use empowerment to bring about. We are working together across Government to tackle this issue head on. That includes the child poverty strategy to boost family incomes and cut essential costs. It also includes the 10-year plan from the Department of Health and Social Care to tackle the link between poverty and obesity, which is an extremely important aspect of these debates; and the expansion and improvement of free school meals by the Department for Education. I personally believe that we must break the link between poverty and obesity, and get good nutritional food to everybody in the country. It is often cheaper to eat good nutritional food, but many people live in constituencies where there are food deserts or where, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet said, there is a poverty premium on getting to good nutritious food, and we have to work with the industry to try to deal with that. We are co-ordinating across Government to deliver real change and to break the cycle of sticking-plaster politics that preceded us. From April, the value of Healthy Start will increase by 10%. The weekly value will increase from £4.25 to £4.65 for pregnant women and children aged one to four, and from £8.50 to £9.30 for children under one. We will continue to work with retailers to expand access to healthy, affordable food, which we at DEFRA are particularly interested in bringing about. The expansion of free school meals will benefit about half a million more pupils, save families up to £495 per child per year and lift about 100,000 children out of relative poverty by the end of this Parliament. We are extending the holiday activities and food programme, with £600 million to support children during school holidays. That was particularly welcomed by the local activists at the food poverty conference that I attended this morning. Our free breakfast clubs will be rolled out nationally, starting with 750 schools, ensuring that no child starts the day hungry for food. I have visited some of those breakfast clubs in my constituency; seeing children eating, playing naturally and being ready to learn as school starts is a real boost. At DEFRA, we are introducing the food inflation gateway to ensure the impact of regulation. Opposition Members have been through some of the issues that they worry about with respect to that—none at greater length than the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam). The food inflation gateway is there to ensure that the impact of regulation on food prices is properly assessed before implementation and is looked at cumulatively. Together, those actions are preventing the chaotic and unsequenced policymaking that characterised a lot of the chaos of our predecessor Governments. We know that food price inflation is just part of a wider challenge on the cost of living, and our approach goes beyond tackling the cost of food alone—from energy bills to childcare. That is why this Government are taking action on all fronts: raising the minimum wage—I recognise that we and the Opposition have a bit of a political disagreement about the effect of that—extending the £3 bus fare cap to keep transport affordable, ensuring that Best Start in Life family hubs can be present in every local authority, backed by £500 million of funding, and removing the cruel and ideological two-child limit on universal credit to ensure that families receive support for all children, thereby helping to lift an estimated 450,000 children out of poverty. That is a serious and ambitious series of actions to tackle the pressures that families face. I am also acutely aware of the pressures that farmers face, which is why we are looking to see what we can do—as the Batters report suggested—to strengthen the fair dealing regulations for farmers to ensure that they get a fair price for the food they produce. Building on the Food Strategy Advisory Board established by my predecessor, we are collaborating across the entire food chain to deliver a system that works for everyone. We have a great deal of work to do. It is not simple, but we are determined to get on with it.

Will the hon. Gentleman please let me develop my point? Over 1 million further premises have been included within contracts to provide access to superfast broadband, with funding of over £1.8 billion allocated in the latest spending review to support the project. That helps end social isolation, provides access to healthcare and turbocharges rural businesses. Our focus on rural hard-to-reach areas ensures that the benefits of superfast broadband reach every corner of the UK, breaking down barriers that the Conservative Government failed to address. I must say—

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add: “welcomes the support that the Government is providing for rural people, communities and businesses; commends the continued support for farmers through investment in Environmental Land Management schemes which will boost nature and sustainable food production; recognises that the Government has listened on the subject of Agricultural Property Relief and made changes to support family farms; further welcomes the Bus Services Act 2025, which includes provision to support the protection of socially necessary bus services in rural areas; further recognises that the Government continues to invest in Project Gigabit with £2.4 billion available to ensure over one million premises have access to gigabit-capable broadband; and supports the joined-up approach with the weight of Government behind tackling rural crimes such as the theft of high value farm equipment and livestock.” I welcome the chance to open the debate on behalf of the Government and to highlight what we are doing to support rural people, businesses and communities to realise their full potential. I apologise in advance to the House and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I will not be able to stay for the whole debate. [Hon. Members: “Oh, no!”] I am sure hon. Members will miss me. We are committed to improving the quality of life for all people across the country. To achieve that, we are putting the needs of people and businesses in rural areas at the heart of policymaking. I am baffled, quite frankly, that the Opposition think they have any right to speak on behalf of rural communities after the 14 years of chaos and corruption that they put this country through. I am astounded that they are now trying to present themselves as the solution to the problems that rural communities face, when they were the architects of many of those very same problems. The very Members sat opposite me presided over the first Parliament in modern history where living standards were lower at the end than they were at the beginning, and rural communities were some of the hardest hit by their incompetence. The Conservatives are the party that oversaw the shambolic Brexit deal that hit farming communities hard. That was happening alongside the sleaze that countless people across the country will no doubt remember so well: £1.4 billion of wasted taxpayer money on dodgy covid contracts given to Tory mates over WhatsApp, and partying while the country was in lockdown. Rural communities gave their damning verdict on those 14 years at the general election, sending Conservatives to the Opposition Benches and returning more rural Labour MPs than ever before. While Conservative Members continue to protest, we will get on with clearing up their mess.

We are in only the 18th month of the five years of the Parliament, so the hon. Gentleman should be patient.

That is exactly right. The cuts that were made to enforcement activities and enforcement muscle have caused many huge problems that we are attempting to clear up, such as the 20% rise in waste crime. Many of the benefits we expect and the requirements to keep our rivers free and our wildlife healthy were, in effect, not properly enforced during the austerity years. I am a fair person, so I will give way to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans).

The right hon. Gentleman may vote any way he likes, but I hope that he will take part in the consultation so that we can have a proper debate about these things.

No, I am getting on with my speech. [ Interruption. ] There are many Opposition Members who wish to speak, and I do not want to take their time up. Rural transport under the Conservatives became a postcode lottery—

Perhaps the hon. Lady will let me make my point before she gets up to ask me a question. Rural transport under the Tories became a postcode lottery, and the price that many communities paid was to have no reliable bus service at all. Under Labour, the Bus Services Act 2025 places passenger needs, reliable services and local accountability at the heart of the industry by putting power over local bus services back into the hands of local leaders across England. We are reconnecting our local communities by protecting socially necessary bus services and the most vulnerable. We are rebuilding connectivity and confidence in our countryside—

I will give way to the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew)

I am happy to pass on the hon. Lady’s comments to the appropriate Ministers. Access to digital services is crucial for rural areas. We are delivering high speed-capable broadband to UK premises that are not included in suppliers’ commercial plans. Our aim is to achieve 99% coverage of a reliable, superfast, high-speed broadband by 2032. Over 1 million further premises have been—

I have given way quite a lot, so I am going to carry on with my speech. We know that the roll-out of solar generation does not pose a risk to food security. Planning guidance makes it clear that developers should utilise brownfield land wherever possible. Where agricultural land must be used, lower quality land should be preferred. We also encourage multifunctional land use and are encouraged to see plenty of farmers ignoring the hysteria of the Conservatives and combining sustainable energy generation with arable and livestock farmers—

Certainly, the animal welfare strategy is very comprehensive. As hon. Members will know, it encompasses farm animals, wild animals and pets, as well as international trade and all those aspects. It also looks at what can be done to enforce the ban on hare coursing, which is particularly brutal. I was happy that the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) supported that element. [ Interruption. ] But it happens all the time—that is the point. I said, “enforce the ban”; I did not say “banning”. We can have the best laws in the world, but if none of them is enforced we might as well not bother.

No, I will not give way. The rural economy already contributes £259 billion to gross value added in England alone, and we know that rural areas offer significant potential for further growth. The Government are committed to harnessing this potential to ensure that we can fully realise the opportunities that exist in the rural economy across the whole country. Small and medium-sized businesses are the engine room of the Government’s No. 1 mission, which is growth, and there are half a million registered SMEs in rural areas—the vast majority of them not having anything to do with agriculture or farming. The SME plan, which was launched by the Prime Minister last summer, represents the most comprehensive package of support for small and medium-sized businesses in a generation. The plan will make a real difference to the day-to-day trading operations of small businesses. That includes a new business growth service and a massive £4 billion finance boost to increase access to finance for entrepreneurs and make Britain the best place to start and grow a business. A prosperous rural economy requires effective transport as well as digital infrastructure, the availability of affordable housing and energy, and access to a healthy, skilled workforce. We are tackling those issues. We know that rural residents often have to travel further to access work, education, training, healthcare and other essential services. The Conservatives made that worse by slashing local bus routes in England by 50%, with more than 8,000 services slashed in their time in office.

I add my congratulations to Susan Holliday. She sounds like a remarkable person, and it is good that she has been recognised for the work she has done in her local community. It would be impossible to discuss rural communities without paying tribute to the vital work undertaken by this country’s farmers. Supporting British farmers and boosting the nation’s food security are key priorities for the Government. I understand that farmers do not just produce nutritious food; they also need to make a profit, and the margins of farm businesses are often tight, but we are taking action to help farms prosper. We commissioned Baroness Minette Batters to undertake an independent farming profitability review, and we published that last year. We have announced our new farming and food partnership board, which will bring together voices from farming, food, retail and finance to drive profitability, support home-grown British produce and remove barriers to investment. While the Conservatives failed to spend £300 million of the farming budget, we are investing £11.5 billion over this Parliament into nature-friendly farming. While they sold out our farmers in trade deals with New Zealand and Australia, we are unlocking new markets for British produce in India, China and the United States. We are committing £200 million up to 2030 through farming innovation programme grants to improve productivity and to trial new technologies, and there is an exciting agenda of development out there in that area. We have appointed Alan Laidlaw as the first ever commissioner for tenant farming, giving tenant farmers a stronger voice than ever before. We have continued to listen and engage with the farming community and family businesses about reforms to inheritance tax. Having carefully considered this feedback, we are going further to exempt more farms and businesses from the requirement to pay inheritance tax, while maintaining the core principle that more valuable agricultural and business assets should not receive unlimited relief. That is why we are increasing the inheritance tax threshold from £1 million to £2.5 million. Couples can now pass on up to £5 million without paying inheritance tax on their assets. That will halve the number of estates claiming agricultural property relief that will pay more in 2026-27, including those claiming business property relief. Of the remaining 185 estates affected in 2026-27, 145 of them will pay less than when the allowance was set at £1 million. Let us be absolutely clear about what this Tory motion really is. It is not a plan for rural Britain, and it is not a serious attempt to fix the problems that our rural communities face; it is an exercise in political distraction. Every single regret listed in this motion is the direct result of decisions taken by the Tories over their 14 disastrous years in government. They regret raising taxes after crashing the economy and blowing a hole in the public finances. They regret business closures after years of stagnant growth, poor investment and broken rural infrastructure. They regret changes to funding for rural areas after hollowing out public services, cutting rural transport and stripping away neighbourhood policing in the very places where visibility and response times matter the most. They regret the changes to the rural way of life, but sold out our farmers in trade deals and broke their funding promises. Even their own former Environment Secretary admitted that they had failed to defend our agricultural interests. They regret uncertainty when it was their chopping and changing, their political chaos and their lack of long-term thinking that created it in the first place. Rural communities deserve honesty, not selective political amnesia, and from this Government, they will get it.

There are going to be 3,000 more police officers on the beat this year, which is far more than the right hon. Lady’s Government managed after slashing 20,000 at the beginning of their time in office. This Government are determined to crack down on rural crime. Last year, we published the rural and wildlife crime strategy, collaborating with the National Police Chiefs’ Council. This strategy is a vital step in our mission to deliver safer streets everywhere—that includes rural areas—and comes as we give the police new powers to take on the organised criminal gangs targeting the agricultural sector. Only last year, rural policing teams recovered more than £12.7 million-worth of stolen farm machinery, leading to 155 arrests. Interestingly, some of it turned up abroad, so there is clearly an organised crime element that needs tackling properly.

I know a few people at the Home Office; in fact, when I was there before the reshuffle we launched the rural crime taskforce, which is doing great work and will carry on doing so. I agree, and the hon. Gentleman is right, that enforcement needs to be properly funded and not slashed as it was under the Conservative party. I was talking about improving local transport links and pointing out that we have a multi-year investment, working with local authorities to provide a much better service in our rural areas. We know that those areas are already benefiting from the changes in the Bus Services Act 2025. For example, in York and North Yorkshire, the Labour combined authority is developing a rural bus franchising model to improve connectivity for villages that currently see only one bus per week. That is one bus per week, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is the kind of legacy that we have from the Conservative party in the areas it purports to support. We know that bus services in rural areas can be a lifeline for many, providing the only means of getting around. That is why, in our multi-year allocations for local authorities, we have revised the formula to include a rurality element for the first time, ensuring that the additional challenges of running services in rural areas are taken into account. The Conservatives slashed local bus routes; we are putting them back, protecting them and promoting them.

Perhaps if the hon. Lady had calmed down, I might have had time to do so. [ Interruption. ] No. The total area of land currently used for solar is less than 0.1% of UK land. Communities are providing a service to the country when they host clean energy infrastructure, so there needs to be a benefit for them. Through Labour’s clean power action plan, we have made it clear that where communities host clean energy infrastructure, we will ensure that they benefit from it. There are already voluntary community benefit funds running across the country, including the offshore wind farm at Norfolk Boreas, which has a community fund worth over £15 million. In addition, the Government have already announced bill discounts for communities living nearest to new electricity transmission infrastructure and published guidance on community funds for electricity transmission infrastructure and onshore wind in England. After a decade of Tory cuts to frontline policing, this Government are also committed to driving down rural crime—

We are not working against the private sector. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise the Conservative record in this area. They presided over a 50% cut in the availability of bus services across the country, and that was often worse for rural areas as some lost their buses completely. We know that rural areas are benefiting from Labour’s changes—for example, York and North Yorkshire.

The problem is that we inherited a system in which all the hardest-to-reach bits had been left till last. We are trying now, by investing £1.8 billion, to get that sorted, but I understand the hon. Gentleman’s frustration.

If the hon. Lady gets me the information, I will pass it on to the relevant Minister. I will make sure that we cover the point that she makes. I was astonished to see that the Conservatives had pledged to scrap the Climate Change Act 2008 in the face of opposition from one of their own former Prime Ministers, Baroness May, who called their plans a “catastrophic mistake”. This Government are committed to achieving clean power by 2030, while the Conservatives would leave us dangerously reliant on Putin’s oil. Labour’s ambitious clean power mission will create good jobs in rural areas, protect bill payers and ensure our energy security. Well-designed and well-managed solar farms have the potential to deliver a range of environmental benefits, with some solar farms delivering significantly more than the mandatory 10% increase in habitats required by biodiversity net gain.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should be patient and let me finish my sentence. He should be well aware that the Conservative Government’s record on enforcement was dire, because a lot of enforcement activities were decimated by the cuts they enacted in the period of austerity.

I will give way to the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard).

Go on, then.

First, I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman’s record on animal welfare; I think everyone across the House respects it. Secondly, I was in the House when we voted to ban hunting in the first place. I was actually in the Chamber when it was invaded by hunt protesters, who did not show much attention to the law when they ran into this place—they were so surprised that they had arrived here that they did not quite know what to do. I therefore take no lessons on any of that. The ban on trail hunting was in our manifesto, and we are consulting on how to put it into effect. I certainly hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take part in that consultation.

Again, I am only just starting on that, but go on.

I was talking about the specific point that my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) made about ringfencing for investment, not about some of the costs of the current impasse at Thames Water. To go back to that, the Government will always act in the interests of customers and the environment, and ensure that Thames Water acts in those best interests too. We are working closely with Ofwat, which is currently in conversation with the London & Valley Water consortium, which is the group of creditors that was referred to. Ofwat will only agree to a plan that will ensure the best possible outcomes for customers and the environment. We will continue to support engagement between Ofwat and the consortium, with a view to supporting a market-led solution for Thames Water’s difficulties, while ensuring that customers and the environment are protected. Many hon. Members in this debate have talked about the potential for a special administration regime. Should Thames Water become insolvent, we would not hesitate to apply to the court to place the company into a special administration regime, but as the hon. Member for Epping Forest pointed out, that is not a cost-free option. This would ensure that there is no increased disruption to customers’ water or waste-water services. In line with our preparations for a range of scenarios across regulated industries, including water, officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have selected a firm, FTI Consulting, as an adviser to help with special administration regime contingency planning. That planning is going ahead.

No, I must make this point, which is quite important in the context of the debate. There is a high bar for the use of special administration regimes. The law states that special administration can be initiated only if the company becomes insolvent—while Thames Water is living fairly hand to mouth, it is not currently insolvent—or is in such a serious breach of its principle statutory duties or an enforcement order that it is inappropriate for the company to retain its licence. Those are the only two things than can lead to the application of a special administration regime.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I do not know whether it is down to you, but it is now much warmer in this room than it was in the last Parliament when I was chairing such debates. I regularly left thinking that I had developed frostbite, so whoever has managed to make that change has done a good job. I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing this debate, and thank all hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber for the manner in which they have, very eloquently, made their important points in this debate. It is a pleasure to respond to it on behalf of the water Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), who sadly is unable to be here today. This Government are committed to the transformation of the water sector. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) has just said, the industry is spending £104 billion of private investment on upgrading our crumbling sewage pipes and cutting sewage pollution. Is it not a pity that some of that investment did not happen many years ago? That was promised as one of the advantages of a privatisation that, as many people have said in their various eloquent ways during today’s debate, has essentially not worked. Through the Water (Special Measures) Act, we have driven meaningful improvements in the performance and culture of the water industry, as a first step—only a first step—in enabling wider transformative change across the sector. Following Sir Jon Cunliffe’s report, we have announced our intention to do three things: establish a new single regulator, create a water ombudsman, and stop water companies from marking their own homework when it comes to pollution. The water reform White Paper, which—I have to tantalise hon. Members—is due very shortly, will set out our vision for the sector. Members will not have to wait very long; that is all I am going to say. That White Paper will form the basis of new water legislation, which we will introduce as soon as we get a place in the parliamentary programme to do so. The reforms will secure better outcomes for customers, investors and the environment, and will make the water sector one of growth and opportunity. Turning to Thames Water, this Government will always act in the national interest, and we will work to ensure that Thames Water acts in the best interests of customers and the environment. We are working closely with Ofwat, which is in conversation with the London & Valley Water consortium, a group of Thames Water’s creditors. Ofwat will only agree to a plan that will ensure the best possible outcomes for customers and the environment.

I can confirm that, and it was one of the first things that this Labour Government, when we were incoming, put on to the statute book as a priority, in order to prevent that particular abuse. Thames Water is now under a cash lock-up arrangement; only Ofwat can approve any further dividend payments. That restriction will remain in place until credit ratings improve. Nothing that is happening at the moment will allow the kind of behaviour that we have seen in the past, from this company and others, to continue.

There is an ongoing process that I cannot and will not comment on from the sidelines. What I have said is that the Government will ensure that any resolution comes in the interests of the environment and customers, and that is the criteria that the Government will apply, but I will not commentate on rumours from outside of the process in this place. It is important that we allow the process to continue to its conclusion, whatever that may be. I hope that Members are reassured that the Government will be ready to act and use special administration if we have to, should we get to that circumstance—but we are not in that circumstance yet. I conclude by reiterating that this Government will always act in the national interest. We are clear that Thames Water must always act in the best interests of customers and the environment. We expect it to do that, and we stand ready to act if it becomes clear that it cannot.

There is a process going on between the creditors and the company that must be allowed to finish one way or another. I have just said that, should Thames Water become insolvent, we will not hesitate to apply to the court to place the company into a special administration regime. Hon. Members on both sides of this Chamber should be reassured by that. We will continue to work with Ofwat to help support a market-led solution to the company’s issues of financial resilience and operational delivery.

You won’t be in the kitchen, then?

We have already brought forward some sectoral regulations to improve fairness, but there is a built-in difficulty when there are small suppliers and very large buyers. The fairness regulations that the hon. Gentleman talks about have been put in place to try to redress that difficulty.

We have to get the science right on vaccination trials. The turkey trial is being carried out because this is one of our most valuable stocks, so we cannot rush it. I would not want to get our turkey industry into a situation where the vaccination trial was rushed and we were not sure of the response, because if there is not international recognition of vaccinations, it destroys the trade.

Yes.

That is absolutely true. Stepping forward with confidence into the future using new agritech techniques, diversifying farm income and seeing what we can do in partnership with the industry, as Baroness Batters’ report says this morning, is the way forward; talking down the industry and covering it in doom and gloom is not.

As I may not get another chance, may I take this opportunity to wish you, and all Members and House staff, a happy Christmas, Mr Speaker? We are committed to promoting fairness across the food supply chain, including achieving a fair price for sugar beet that benefits both growers and processors. There is a well-established independent process in place to agree the sugar beet price. We continue to keep it and the regulatory framework under review.

I thank my hon. Friend for her question, which is an acute one. I agree that growers too often bear disproportionate risk, which is why the Government have launched a public consultation on fairness and transparency in the combinable crops supply chain. The consultation is open for eight weeks, and I encourage all interested parties to engage and share their views.

This is a highly sensitive issue. The reasons for someone contemplating taking their own life are often very complex. My heart goes out to every family who is devastated by such events. I understand the pressures that farmers are under, but I have to say that the right hon. Lady’s way of making her point is very distasteful indeed.

I am more than happy to look at how Italy does things, but that can be a bit of a double-edged sword. I sympathise and empathise with coeliacs, who have to deal with much higher prices. Some of that is to do with production and the need to ensure that there is no cross-contamination of foods. It may well be that it is more expensive to produce food that is safe for coeliacs. I absolutely accept my hon. Friend’s point, and I am happy to talk to her about it.

I am puzzled by the hon. Lady’s view that the issues she talks about are somehow having a bad effect on food prices, since yesterday’s figures demonstrate that there has been a 0.7% decline in food price inflation, and estimates assume that inflation will gradually come down over the next two years.

Modelling has shown that food prices are driven by the interaction of domestic and international considerations, including farm gate prices, import prices and exchange rates. Modelling from industry and Government expects food price inflation to fall gradually over the next two years.

I do not think that the hon. Member’s characterisation of the Prime Minister’s remarks to the Liaison Committee is entirely accurate, but I am working on introducing and making available in the first half of next year a sustainable farming incentive scheme that will hopefully be more available to smaller farmers, easier to engage with, and much simpler than the mess delivered by the Government of which he was a part. Let us face it: 25% of the money in the SFI scheme goes to the top 4% of farmers. I want to see a different distribution.

I meet farmers all the time, and I intend to spend the early part of next year, and hopefully many years thereafter, continuing to do so.

This is a matter for the University of Cambridge, but having visited the veterinary school at Harper Adams University, I am all too aware—as clearly the hon. Gentleman is—of the importance of having enough well-qualified vets in our country. We need to ensure that the supply and the opportunities to train are there, but this particular decision is one for the University of Cambridge. I am happy to talk to the university, but I am unsighted on the reasons. If the hon. Member wants to talk to me afterwards, I would be more than happy to hear what he has to say.

I pay tribute to the farmers in my hon. Friend’s constituency in the awful situation they face. We are closely monitoring the outbreak and have taken action to eradicate disease by putting in place control zones, tracing movements and issuing a proactive housing order. I am more than happy to talk to him about what we can do to ensure that we have the appropriate level of veterinary response. Avian flu is now endemic in the wild bird population, and we will have to get increasingly sophisticated at dealing with it.

While the Conservatives failed to spend £300 million of the farming budget, we are backing farmers with the largest nature-friendly budget in history, and 50,000 farm businesses and half of all farmed land are now managed under our schemes. We have today published our initial response to Baroness Batters’ recommendations on farm profitability, and we are developing our 25-year farming road map.

I understand and empathise with the experience of the hon. Lady’s constituent. A global glut of milk is driving prices down; prices had gone up because there was an undersupply, so there are market corrections going on. The Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024 now apply to all dairy supply contracts. If her constituent feels that he is being unfairly dealt with, he can contact the agricultural supply chain adjudicator, who was appointed to carry out enforcement of the fair dealing obligation regulations. He can now do so because those regulations have been in place since July of this year.

The global glut of milk has led to instability in price, which is difficult as many of our food prices are reliant on global markets. We have put in place the Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024, and we will be keeping a close eye on the sector to see what else we can do to ensure that we continue to support it.

We have a close relationship with the Home Office, and I have old contacts there too. I promise that we keep a close eye on these things and look at what we can do about emerging shortages. Given that we want to reduce the number of people who come into this country and that we want to create job opportunities for people here, it is important that the sector looks at how it can train people locally to do those jobs.

My hon. Friend raises the important point that a third of all farmland in England is managed by tenant farmers, so a fair and sustainable tenant farming sector relies on positive landlord, tenant and adviser relationships. To help deliver that, we have appointed Alan Laidlaw as England’s first commissioner for the tenant farming sector. We will continue to look particularly at how tenant farming agreements are working, to see whether there is any need for reform in the future.

Dairy farmers are facing a difficult period of market adjustment. The new fair dealing regulations ensure fairness and greater transparency, creating a more resilient dairy supply chain that supports farmers and strengthens national food security.

We are trying to take the scheme forward in a positive, iterative way. The consultation is not kicking the can down the road; it is recycling the can to see what we can do to ensure that the system is changed and iterated to fit more effectively, to drive up recycling rates in our economy and to move towards a circular economy. I hope the hon. Member feels reassured by that response.

I am happy to address some of the points that have been raised. I welcome that the official Opposition are broadly supportive of this system, and I will come to their questions in a minute. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton, sounded like she was in favour on principle but not quite in favour of this particular system. That is an interesting approach, but ripping up the whole thing and starting again would not help our recycling rates. I prefer to think that the best way forward is to keep refining what is happening, to see how it works and to see if there are obvious things that we need to change. These draft regulations are part of that iteration, because they introduce, for example, a change on the closed loop for food-grade plastics, and they shift to a producer-run organisation so that we can integrate how packaging is produced and try to drive up recycling rates. These measures will be responsible for returning over £1 billion to local authorities through fees and structures that enable them to recycle waste collected at people’s doors. The hon. Member for Epping Forest asked whether Ministers have met industry groups affected by dual use, and I hope to reassure him that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), has done so. We recognise the strength of feeling on the need for a system that can be effectively monitored and enforced, given the impact of pEPR on packaging that remains in scope of fees. Through our workshops, we are looking at what we can do to refine the system further to deal with the issues of double charging, as the shadow Minister put it. He asked what would happen if the PRO collapsed. PackUK can take control in the event of a catastrophe while it seeks to establish a successor, so that there does not have to be any other system. We recognise the issues with glass, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli, and the issues with measuring by weight, on which we are in touch with producers. There is also Government support for energy costs in the industry, which will hopefully deal with some of the additional costs that traditional industries are having to shoulder. I hope my hon. Friend accepts that we will continue to keep all of this under review. To conclude, the amendments made by these draft regulations are necessary to maintain the circular economy for packaging in the UK, to ensure that the key industry request that producers are involved in running the scheme is taken forward, and ultimately to ensure that materials and products are kept in use longer. I trust that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee understand and accept the need for these draft regulations, and accept that the changes will benefit the scheme.

I know that the responsible Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East, has met the industry, and that workshops have been held over recent weeks to urgently and carefully identify options that address the issues that the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton raises. We all need to find positive ways forward to address those issues. I hope she is reassured that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East is on to that one and already taking action. I hope that, with those explanations, this measure has the support of the Committee. Question put and agreed to .

I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2025. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. These draft regulations were laid before the House on 3 November, and they introduce amendments to extended producer responsibility for packaging—referred to as pEPR—in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. The amendments mark a significant milestone in our journey towards a more circular, resource-resilient economy in which producers take greater responsibility for the packaging they place on the market, and in which waste is designed out from the beginning. The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024 established a new framework for managing household packaging waste. They shifted the financial burden of disposal from taxpayers and local authorities to the businesses that supply the packaging. As a direct result, producers are now obligated to cover the cost of managing the packaging waste they have produced, and to ensure that a proportion of the packaging they supply is recycled, with evidence provided to the regulator. The amendments before us today are designed to improve the fairness, clarity and operational efficiency of the scheme. They respond directly to feedback from producers, local authorities and other stakeholders, and they reflect our commitment to international best practice. I will highlight three key areas of reform in the amendments. First, we are enabling the appointment of a producer responsibility organisation from 2026, which is a significant development. The producer responsibility organisation will be an independent not-for-profit body established with the support of producers to take on core responsibilities for the operation of the pEPR scheme. This responds to a critical request from industry and aligns with successful models seen in countries with mature extended producer responsibility systems, ensuring that producers are not only accountable but actively involved in shaping the system. The PRO will operate under conditions agreed by the four Governments, and it will work in close partnership with the scheme administrator, PackUK. Sovereign functions related to sign-off and ownership of data, models and fee-setting cannot be delegated to the producer responsibility organisation, and will be retained by PackUK. Secondly, we are introducing a targeted expansion of the scheme’s offsetting provisions. Large producers that operate closed-loop recycling systems for food-grade plastics—a system whereby they collect their own food-grade plastic waste directly from consumers and send it for reprocessing into new food-grade recyclate—will now be able to deduct these closed-loop package tonnages from their disposal cost obligations. Eligible producers will be able to resubmit data for the 2024 reporting year and receive revised invoices for the 2025 assessment year. We are doing this because we want to increase the recycled content in food-grade plastics. Despite sorting techniques, it is currently difficult for local authorities to keep plastic that is intended for food contact separate from other types of plastics, and the result is that food-grade plastics often get downcycled, so we lose that valuable material. Closed-loop recycling systems help to keep food-grade plastics separate and decrease our reliance on virgin plastics. The approach we have chosen supports moving the UK towards a circular economy. Thirdly, we are making a series of technical amendments to improve the scheme’s operability and ensure clarity for producers. Those include refining the definition of fibre-based composite materials by introducing a threshold—where plastic layers constitute no more than 5% of the packaging by mass, the item will be treated as paper and card. That provides greater clarity for reporting and fee calculation. We are clarifying obligations across producer classes, including how responsibilities transfer when businesses merge or change ownership. We are also strengthening enforcement powers to tackle non-compliant “free riders”, which are businesses that meet the producer threshold but fail to register or report data. Such entities gain an unfair advantage over compliant competitors and undermine the integrity of the system. The scheme administrator, PackUK, will now have powers to charge free riders and recover costs. Updating regulator fees to reflect increased activity and inflationary pressures, as well as the introduction of new services such as recyclability assessment methodology and digital infrastructure, also form part of the change. The amendments do not change the core policy of pEPR; rather, they enhance its delivery and ensure that the system is fair, transparent and effective. They have been developed through extensive consultation and co-design sessions with stakeholders, which brought together producers, local authorities and others from across the packaging value chain to shape the future of the scheme. The amendments before us today strengthen our commitment to a circular economy, support innovation, reward sustainability and ensure that our packaging system works for the environment, the industry and the public.

Of course it will be published.

It is a great pleasure to respond to this debate with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison—I hope you are warmer than I am, having sat in what is quite a cold room for the entire debate. It has been a good debate, so I would like to congratulate the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on her success in securing it. We have had a good and serious debate across all parties about a serious, if somewhat complex and multifaceted, issue. Food security is about land use, but it is also wider than that, so I will begin my response by explaining how the Government are approaching this issue in the round. I do not think anyone would argue that food security is not an important part of our national security. If they were going to argue that before covid-19 and the war in Ukraine, I do not see how they could possibly argue it after living through those occurrences and seeing the effects and implications that those unanticipated events had on our ability to be resilient in future unforeseen circumstances. Being open-minded to learn the lessons, and doing our best to anticipate what the challenges of the future might be, is an important part of how we develop a more resilient stance than we would have if our post-war complacency—if I could put it that way—had carried on without what has happened in the last few years. Anticipating the challenges of the future requires a close working relationship with the food sector. I chair F4, which brings together the National Farmers’ Union, the Food and Drink Federation, the British Retail Consortium and UKHospitality. That group represents the food system from farm to fork, and ensures that we are prepared for disruption to food supply chains and that we can respond quickly to threats as they emerge. We have heard about some of the threats from right hon. and hon. Members today, ranging from cyber-security threats to threats from Ukraine. Nobody has mentioned pests or diseases, but that is another potential threat that farmers know only too well. We have sadly experienced that in this country while I have been a Member of Parliament. Robust analysis and transparency are critical. That is why we will publish an annual food security digest report, in addition to the UK food security report, which is published every three years. The most recent was published last December. Those reports highlight how diverse international trade routes and resilient domestic production systems ensure that any disruption from risks, such as adverse weather or disease, does not affect the UK’s overall security of supply. Figures have been bandied around by different people about the percentage of our food we grow ourselves. UK agriculture currently provides 65% of the food we eat—77% of what we can actually grow here. We may not be brilliant at growing bananas, even though people love to eat them. The figure rises from 65% to 77% if we take account of what we can grow in our climate. Those figures have been more or less stable over 20 years. Recent geopolitical challenges have highlighted increasing risks to food security, but have also demonstrated the resilience of our food system. As we develop implementation plans for the food strategy, we are applying lessons learned from covid-19 and the Russian invasion of Ukraine about how to prepare for, respond to and recover from shocks. For example, one of the lessons from covid-19 was the key role that local communities and food systems played in maintaining access to food, particularly for the most vulnerable. I know from my experience during that strange time that working with the local authority and local kitchens was a far better way of ensuring that those who had to shield had access to useable, nutritious food. That is why the food strategy will focus on strengthening local food systems. I am working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions to end mass dependence on food parcels, which is a moral scar on our society. I raise that point because food security is also about the ability of every citizen to access the nutrition they need. The new crisis and resilience fund will enable local authorities to provide preventive support for communities and assistance to individuals facing a financial shock, improving citizens’ financial resilience and reducing the need for future crisis support. We also face challenges to the resilience of domestic food production systems from soil degradation, disease and climate change. Those are critical long-term risks, but we should be clear that the impacts are here today. We need only speak to a farmer whose fields were underwater last winter and then parched and drought-ridden this summer. They would say that that is not a theoretical risk, but a threat to food production today. That is a threat we can manage because we need to take climate change seriously and do something about it, as we do with more conventional threats.

I was not trying to make out that arable crops could graze around solar panels—

Of course it will be published, and it will be published this year. I cannot think of any Government who produce large reports on matters of interest in the week before the Budget. The hon. Gentleman can expect to see it this year, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the EFRA Committee in evidence, I think last week. I could understand why the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills would be worried if solar farms were planned to take up more than 0.4% of land in England in the next period, up to 2035, but they are not. Also, the 1.5 million homes that this Government have said they will deliver in this Parliament are likely to take up approximately 26,000 hectares, which is 0.2% of English land. That is quite a small land take to transform the lives of the many hundreds of thousands of people who are currently in need of homes. The Government are quite right to pursue a target of 1.5 million homes, and clearly one needs to build those homes on land. As I said, 26,000 hectares, which is 0.2% of English land, is the approximate amount of land that will be needed to ensure that we can house many people who currently do not have the prospect of having a home of their own.

In the small amount of time left to me before the end of the debate, it is hard for me to answer the hon. Gentleman. It is not up to me to take decisions about local planning issues of that kind. That is what local plans are for. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills for securing the debate. I know that she wants to say a few words, so I will sit down.

The right hon. Lady is correct, but I am trying to get this into perspective in terms of overall land use. There have been many calls for the land use framework to be published. I hope I can reassure hon. and right hon. Member that we will publish it early next year. Having looked at some of it, I am totally fascinated by it; when we publish it, I think we will have very many interesting debates about what it demonstrates. As I see it, the food strategy goes together with the land use framework, which goes together with the farming road map—all of which are in parallel production even as we speak.

I was coming to that. I am happy to get across my view of what this should be. The food strategy that we published in July makes clear that we will act to ensure that our food system can thrive and grow sustainably and continue to provide a resilient and secure supply of healthy, safe and affordable food. It sets out that that should include investment, innovation and productivity, and a fairer, more transparent supply chain, which is why we are dealing with the supply chain adjudicators and introducing regulation on how to ensure fairness. Dairy and pigs are already in a process, but other work is being done for other sectors to ensure that a fair price is paid for the food that is produced, which is important. Boosting the resilience of our food system will prepare it better for supply chain shocks and disruption. Some of what we have to do is ensure resilience to climate change, which will make us more resilient in the way in which we produce food. Environmental changes therefore go hand in hand with protecting food production. If we do not make our landscapes more resilient and more sustainable environmentally, it is likely that the productivity of our land will decline and it will be harder as the climate changes for us to guarantee reasonable food production. Some of those things bolster each other and should not be set against one another, as the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said in her opening remarks. They can produce a more effective and more resilient result if we do them effectively and properly. We already manage the resilience of domestic production through updated environmental land management schemes. The good news is that actions taken today to manage these immediate risks can also reduce the risk from climate change. There is a £7 billion farming budget focused on improving the resilience of our food systems. That maintains the Government’s commitment to farming, food security and nature’s recovery. It includes £5.9 billion for environmental farming schemes, £816 million for tree planting and £385 million for peatland restoration, all of which is vital for sustainability. The farming budget will pay for land management actions that reduce flood and drought risk for arable systems and manage heat risk for livestock. The Government will also provide £15 million in funding to stop millions of tonnes of good, fresh farm food going to waste by redirecting that surplus into the hands of those who need it. The new energy infrastructure and new homes are not a risk to food security. Today, ground-mounted solar covers 13,000 hectares of land, which is 0.1% of England and 0.15% of English agricultural land. Half the agricultural land generating solar power is still producing food because it is dual-use—there are sheep grazing, and so on, on it. By 2035, the plan is for the percentage to rise to 0.4% of England as we increase our solar power generation capacity from 18 GW to 75 GW. To put that into perspective, golf courses take up 0.7% of UK land and grouse moors take up 4%. At the moment, solar is at 0.1%, with plans to go up to 0.4%. People may not like solar panels appearing in and around the areas they live in, but they are not a threat to food security.

Hon. Lady.

I do not think that the lack of appearance of Baroness Batters’s report has stopped anyone lobbying the Chancellor; lobbying is happening outside even as we speak.

It sounds as though the shadow Minister thinks that the entirety of agricultural land will be covered in solar. I have already said that it will be 0.4% by 2030, and it provides farmers with extra income. We have a national planning policy framework that prioritises using lower-quality land for such things. He says that he wants solar power on rooftops—well, we are doing that too.

A very small area of land is used by solar farms—as I said before, it is 0.1% of the UK’s total land area. The clean power commitment 2030 will take that up to 0.4%. Our land use framework, which will deal with ensuring that solar farms do not go on prime agricultural land, is due to be published in the early part of next year.

Only 0.1% of land is used for solar, and half of the agricultural land used for generating solar power is still producing food. Solar farms are not a risk to food security. Instead, they play an important role in diversifying farm income and decarbonising our economy.

We will publish the farming road map and the Batters review, and then talk about a strategy for making farming more productive, profitable and sustainable for the next generation. Upland farmers will play an important part in that review, and we will see what we can do to support them.

No, it is not the family farm tax. The right hon. Gentleman should be patient and wait to see our plan for the future of farming.

Again, we understand the pressures that farmers are under. We want to work on creating a productive, profitable and sustainable farming sector, and we will do so.

We are fully supportive of collaboration between industry and higher and further education to strengthen skills in the agrifood sector. I will be visiting Harper Adams; that visit is already in the diary, and if my hon. Friend wants to join me, he is more than welcome.

We remain firmly committed to maintaining and improving animal welfare, and will work closely with the farming sector to deliver high standards. The use of cages and other close confinement systems for farmed animals is an issue we are currently considering and, as was announced by the Prime Minister, we plan to publish the animal welfare strategy by the end of this year.

It is important to remember that 50% of the national sow breeding herd live freely and are not kept in these kinds of cage systems at all, which I think shows the way forward. It is very important that we work with the industry to see how we can move away from the use of farrowing crates and create more flexible alternatives that are available to be introduced in a practical and pragmatic way.

We are always ready to consider how we can bring about the policies that will be set out in the animal welfare strategy when we publish it. We are pragmatic about how we can shift from outdated systems and modernise, and we are proud that we have some of the highest standards of animal welfare in the world.

There is no time. I am sure that together we can come up with some really creative solutions to assist in ensuring that we have a better future for those now suffering from a lack of access to free and nutritious food, and that we can finally start to address the terrible link between poverty and obesity, which has become such a feature of our society in recent years. Question put and agreed to.

It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee) on securing this debate, and I thank all those who have made relevant, if somewhat fast, contributions. It demonstrates how important these issues are, and how much more awareness has recently been raised about them. We know that many households are struggling to afford food, particularly fresh and nutritious food, with some disproportionately affected, including low-income families and those with disabilities. We also know that our food environment is dominated by products high in saturated fat, sugar and salt, which are highly addictive, heavily promoted and readily available, as well as cheap, making it harder for people to make healthy choices. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South gave us a vivid example from his area of Castlemilk that shows how, even if people wish to make those choices, they cannot practically do it. The idea of having to make a six-mile round trip to buy a banana says it all, when other ways of getting to the nearest supermarket are so impossible for those on low incomes.

Today’s debate is about those who do not have practical access to any such choice, because there simply is nowhere for them to go and buy it. The national child measurement programme’s annual report demonstrated the consequences of the inequality of diet. For reception and year 6 children, obesity prevalence was more than double in the most deprived areas, compared with the least. These trends have been allowed to increase over the last 14 years, and there is now a positive correlation between obesity and poverty, which we must break. That is why it is so important that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South has brought forward this small but perfectly formed debate on a really serious issue. How can we bring to bear really creative solutions to these problems, such as the food deserts that my hon. Friend talked about? The Government have done some things. We have a food strategy that talks about how we can improve food price affordability and access to highly nutritious food. We are committed to making the healthy choice the easier choice, which is certainly not the case in Castlemilk in his area. We know that the cost of a nutritious diet is currently too high, and we know, for example, that we can do some work on that through the Healthy Start scheme, which supports people to buy fresh or frozen fruit, vegetables, pulses, milk and infant formula, if they have children under four. Healthy Start makes a valuable difference to families’ ability to purchase healthy foods for their young children. The nursery milk scheme provides reimbursement to childcare providers for giving a daily portion of milk to children and babies. We are taking action in schools, including by trying to improve the nutritional aspects of free school meals. We are reviewing the school food standards to ensure that schools provide healthy food and drink options and restrict foods high in saturated fat, salt or sugar, to reflect the most recent Government dietary recommendations. We have extended free school meals to all children from households on universal credit, lifting 100,000 children out of poverty and putting £500 back into families’ pockets ahead of the child poverty strategy later this year. Some 90,000 disadvantaged students in further education now receive a free meal on the basis of low income and an additional 1.3 million infants enjoy a free lunch-time meal. Our new free breakfast clubs will help around 180,000 children in the first 750 schools, around 80,000 of whom are in deprived areas. A free, nutritious meal every school day helps our children and young people to access healthy food and supports their education and chances to succeed in work and life. That is soon to be extended to 2,000 schools, with 500,000 more pupils being involved. On the questions about food redistribution, we are looking at that in the circular economy strategy to see how we can make the best use of surplus food. On the point about KitKat’s marketing budget, you learn something every day—it is a bit worrying to contemplate that. There is new mandatory healthy food sales reporting for large food businesses. That will start to encourage the recalibration of food and its contents, which I hope will begin to make a difference. We are restricting volume price promotions on unhealthy food—buy one, get one free promotions—which encourage less nutritious food to be even more available. We expect that to make a difference. We have given local authorities stronger powers to block fast food outlets near schools, and I want such powers to be used proactively. We are also consulting on a ban on the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks to children under 16, which tend to be bought by children who live in more deprived, low-income households and make it very difficult for them to concentrate. This is not just about policy generally but what we can do across the system to reduce food inequality and improve access to healthy, affordable food. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South talked about the really difficult choices that his constituents face. I am more than happy to meet him to talk about what might happen there. Many hon. Members have talked about the Alexandra Rose charity. There is an interesting thing going on across the river in Merseyside, in Liverpool, where a mobile greengrocer called the Queen of Greens takes food to places where there is no supermarket. It may be that in the interim, before he and his community in Castlemilk get the chance to have a new supermarket built, there are some creative solutions for taking nutritious choices to the community. That is why I agree so much with some of the points made about how local communities, community action and perhaps even co-ops might be able to make a difference in areas such as that. The more creative we can be in having faster solutions, the more we can ensure that the current generation get the nutritional support that they deserve, rather than having to wait perhaps years for a supermarket to be built. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South for raising this really important issue.

Of course, but I have very little time to answer some of these points.

We have had a small but perfectly formed debate on a measure that has gathered cross-party agreement, partly because of the power of the argument about the damage that microplastics do. I particularly compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Putney on her long-standing and very powerful advocacy in this area: she should be very proud of the effect that her campaigning has had. The hon. Member for Richmond Park has sold the beauty of her constituency in a way that I have never quite managed. I look forward to a time when she can talk about the unalloyed pleasures of the nature and beauty of her constituency without having to get us all involved in contemplating 180 tonnes of fatberg caused by 5 million wet wipes, but I also observe that 11 million wet wipes, or possibly more, are used a year. That is two fatbergs a year, created by the kind of waste that we are talking about banning. I acknowledge that, as the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex pointed out, banning wet wipes that contain plastic will not stop the formation of fatbergs in our sewer system, because any wet wipe can contribute to that, as indeed can pouring oil down the sewer system. We therefore have much more work to do, not least on labelling and the “Do not flush” approach to the wet wipes that will remain even after the ban is brought into force. I compliment the hon. Gentleman for pointing out to me some of the issues with the Department, which I joined not so long ago; I will take those back so that future statutory instruments can get through his Committee unscathed. I note the points that he made about those that have not quite reached the standard of technical excellence of this one. The hon. Gentleman asked whether we would have been able to introduce this statutory instrument if we had been in the EU. My information is that we would. The EU is not actually banning wet wipes at the moment; it is doing plastic versus non-plastic labelling. Perhaps the EU is beginning to go down the path that we have pioneered.

The hon. Gentleman has anticipated some of what I was going to say in my winding-up remarks—but he is right.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. The regulations were laid before the House on 16 September. I welcome the chance today to set out the action that this Government and the devolved Governments are taking to ban the supply and sale of wet wipes containing plastic across the UK. I am clearly not my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, the Minister who has had the most to do with taking this legislation through Parliament. She cannot be with us today, and I have stepped into her position to introduce the statutory instrument that she has done so much work to bring about. The Government are committed to root and branch reform of the water system to secure better outcomes for customers, investors and the environment, and to restore trust and accountability. A key part of that is enabling pre-pipe drainage and wastewater solutions, including better management of our rainwater and preventing pollutants from entering the sewer network and our waterways. Banning wet wipes containing plastic is integral to that ambition. Wet wipes containing plastic are a growing source of plastic pollution amd are often found in our natural environment, including in waterways and on beaches. They break down into smaller pieces when in the water environment, contributing to microplastic pollution, which may be harmful to human and animal health. Banning them will reduce plastic and microplastic pollution, as well as reduce the volume of microplastics entering wastewater treatment sites when wrongly flushed. This action is part of a wider commitment to encourage more sustainable behaviours around the consumption of single-use plastic. Ultimately, we want to encourage a shift towards reusable and/or plastic-free alternatives. In a 2023 public consultation, 95% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the proposed ban on wet wipes containing plastic. The ban is part of the Government’s all-round approach to moving towards a circular economy for plastics—a future where we keep our resources in use for longer, waste is reduced to accelerate the path to net zero, and we see investment in critical infrastructure and green jobs, which will help our economy to prosper and nature to thrive. We intend to publish the first ever circular economic strategy for England in the coming months. The UK is leading the way by banning the supply and sale of wet wipes containing plastic, which is a huge step in the right direction. We encourage other nations to consider banning these products, but there may be legitimate reasons why some countries continue to allow the supply and sale of the products. We have been working closely across the UK to agree a joined-up approach to the proposed ban and a UK-wide Government response. We want to deliver a ban that is sensible and effective, while minimising the negative impacts it might have on business and individuals reliant on these products. The statutory instrument provides for an 18-month transition period before coming into force. The ban will therefore come into force in spring 2027, which is intended to mitigate the economic impacts of the ban, including potential job losses, and to mitigate the risk of excess stocks of wet wipes containing plastic being sent to landfill or being incinerated. We acknowledge that, for some uses, plastic-free alternatives are neither suitable nor available. On that basis, we will provide a medical and a business-to-business exemption to the ban. Our policy on exemptions ensures that individuals and businesses with a genuine need for wet wipes containing plastic can access them until there is a viable alternative. We will periodically review the scope of the exemptions. Trading standards or equivalent enforcement officers in local authorities will enforce the ban using a reactive intelligence-led model. The Government will soon publish guidance to make clear the scope and details of the regulations. That will assist businesses and regulators in understanding the changes brought in by this legislation to help ensure compliance. I emphasise that a ban on the supply and sale of wet wipes containing plastic is necessary to reduce plastic and microplastic pollution, particularly in our waters. I commend this statutory instrument to the Committee.

Of course, and that is why I will give way to my hon. Friend. I think that the EU is perhaps beginning some tentative steps along the same pathway that, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, we are pioneering.

I am in awe of my hon. Friend’s detailed knowledge of EU directives that were passed after we left. I am sure that she remains in dynamic alignment with what is going on in Europe. I want to spend a little time answering the questions of the hon. Member for Epping Forest. Enforcement will be proportionate. The 18-month transition period is pretty generous, as far as transition periods go. We are certainly hoping that with the signals that have been given and with the ban coming in, the industry will be able to adjust. We also encourage it to innovate so that we can get plastic out of the remaining wet wipes that, for the time being, the exemptions in the statutory instrument allow. It is a pragmatic statutory instrument, as the hon. Gentleman says. The hon. Gentleman asked how enforcement would work. It will be on sellers and suppliers, not on individuals. There will certainly be no one knocking on doors and checking people’s pantries to see whether they have an old supply of wet wipes with plastic in. At least, that is not the Government’s intention; if anyone were on the receiving end of that treatment, it would certainly be an overreach not allowed under this statutory instrument. With all those qualifications, I hope that the Committee will agree to the draft regulations. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That the Committee has considered the draft Environmental Protection (Wet Wipes Containing Plastic) (England) Regulations 2025.

In a minute.

No Parliament can bind its successor, but it is not usual for funds announced in this way to be suddenly ended at the beginning of the next Parliament. We certainly want to ensure that we put in place plans that are so useful and effective that no subsequent Government would even think of cutting the fund. It would be half.

We are awaiting the EU mandate, which the Commission tells us will be available by the end of November. We are very anxious to then get on to doing the SPS deal as quickly as possible, so that we can tear away all the red tape caused by Brexit. That has caused so much damage and made it so hard for the UK fishing industry to trade with our closest neighbour.

Following Brexit—since leaving the EU under the trade and co-operation agreement—the UK received an uplift in its fishing quota. Some 65% of that uplift went to Scotland. That was worth £107 million on 2024 figures, so I think Scotland got a reasonable deal. Remember that the uplift in the quota, which creates real income, is locked in going forward.

As I have said, we are at an early stage in the process of seeing how we can do this. We are committed to trying to co-design the fund, so I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend about how she wishes that co-operation to be taken forward in the fantastic area of Scarborough—it is near Bridlington, where I was born, which also has a little to do with crabs.

It is rather odd that in this country we have to export more of what we catch because we eat what is caught elsewhere. Expanding the UK population’s view of what they can eat from the catch might make it easier to revive our fishing industry. I will be seeing a group of Cornish Members next week to talk about some of their detailed suggestions about the fund, and I am interested in all creative ideas.

My hon. Friend has made some interesting observations about creativity, which may well be applied to the fund. We are trying to co-design the way the fund will work—it is there for the next 12 years—so that we can be creative and think about how we support the younger generation of people who wish to go into the industry. Some of the suggestions that he has made are intriguing, and I will certainly follow them up with him and others.

It is important that we try to support all our fishing industry around the UK. The idea of devolving the fund was to allow the devolved Administrations to do that in their particular areas, because they have more information and views on how best to support. Some £18 million of extra support in the fund goes directly to Wales, which can be used and decided upon by the Senedd to support its local industry.

Clearly, the way that devolution works is that the Government in Westminster, once we have distributed funds via the Barnett formula, cannot ringfence them in any of the devolved Administrations. That would be a ridiculous misinterpretation of what devolution means, and I am sure that those devolved Administrations would be the first to complain if we tried. The hon. Member—I thank him for his welcome to me—needs to talk to the Northern Ireland Assembly about what it is going to do. We want the fund to be used for the purposes for which it was created, but by definition the devolution settlement takes the ringfence off, so he must have his arguments with the Assembly.

The right hon. Gentleman will have to ask the Scottish Government about what they are going to do with their devolved part of the fund. He might also wish to ask them whether there is any extra money available from the devolved comprehensive spending review process, because they got an extra £8.5 billion to spend this year.

On the hon. Gentleman’s last point, clearly improving water quality is another policy area. The coastal growth fund is not about improving water quality; it is about building resilience, helping to modernise the fishing industry through high tech, access to training and entry to the industry. We must not mix up Government support for different issues, and try to shove everything into one policy. The hon. Gentleman also asks about the reset for export purposes. If we can do it properly, the reset with the EU will enable the export of fish and catch with much less red tape than we have ended up with, post Brexit. There are big gains to be made from that. Likewise, if we can get the free trade agreement to work properly, it will increase the prospect of fishing industry exports to other parts of the world.

Pride in place funding is a new initiative from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Colleagues will know that it is based very much on a bottom-up approach to improving place. My understanding is that allocations will be given and directed by local boards with community membership. That is an important way of doing regeneration. It is not doing things to people from on high; it means trying to involve and listen to those who live in those places, who know what is best. I hope that we will be able to apply that principle to the use of these funds over time.

The Father of the House knows that flattery will get him everywhere—obviously, I hold him in equally high esteem. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), I am more than happy to work out how we can use this fund to do precisely as he suggests.

We are working closely with our fishing and seafood sectors to ensure that they are vibrant, profitable and sustainable, and that we have a healthy and productive marine environment. That is why, on 19 May, the Government announced the fishing and coastal growth fund, a £360 million investment that will support the next generation of fishers and breathe new life into our coastal communities. Through the fund, we have recognised the vital contribution that fishing and coastal communities make to our economy, local communities and national heritage. Designing the fund with stakeholders is paramount to its success, and we want to work with industry and communities to get their views on how to maximise value and target investment for maximum local impact. That engagement is just beginning. We will consider investment in new tech and equipment to modernise the fleets; in training and skills to back the next generation; and in promoting and supporting the seafood sector, so that it can export across the world. Since the fund was announced, a wide range of stakeholders have called on the Government to learn from previous fisheries funding schemes and to devolve the funding, instead of the funding being at UK-level. That is why, on 20 October, the Government, in a reaffirmation of our commitment to devolution, confirmed that the fishing and coastal growth fund would be devolved, and that devolved Governments would have full discretion over how to allocate funding. That approach enables each devolved Government to design and deliver support in response to the specific needs of their fishing and coastal communities. That will ensure that investment is targeted towards regional needs and national views, and that it best supports coastal towns and villages. It ensures that decisions are taken closer to the communities that the devolved Governments serve, so the sector can thrive for generations to come. Although the Government respect the devolution settlement, I would like to encourage collaboration across all Governments to maximise the fund’s impact, as each Government will have their own insights into how the funding can be used, and will learn lessons over the fund’s lifetime.

Part of the fund and its use is certainly about trying to create a more vibrant and modern fishing industry that is resilient, and part of that must be social resilience. I look forward to any of the views of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents on how the fund could best be used, but we must remember that it is fishing-related, not general; it is there to modernise and make more resilient the UK’s fishing industry.

I have been looking at the history of seafood support funds. The last one was a UK seafood fund, which was reserved by the then Government nationally, to be used in a strategic way. There were many vocal complaints that the fund should have been devolved. We have now devolved a fund in the way in which funds are always devolved: using the Barnett formula, which gives a 20%-a-head uplift to devolved Governments for all other spending. I also note that the devolution settlements in the comprehensive spending review 2025 gave the Scottish Government another £8.5 billion that they can choose to spend in any way. It is always open to them to support the sector, which is an important industrial sector for them, with some of the money devolved to them in the CSR devolution settlement.

My hon. Friend is correct. I believe that the free trade deal with India took away all tariffs on Scottish salmon, so hopefully there will be a lot more of it heading that way soon.

The fund is about long-term transformation and partnership. We want to modernise the fishing sector, support coastal regeneration and build resilience in the industry across the UK. For that reason, we will co-design the fund with local communities and the industry. I am not able to answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions in detail at this precise moment, because we seek to co-operate with those who will be beneficiaries. When I am in a position to make further announcements, I certainly will.

As I have mentioned, a predecessor fund—the UK seafood fund—was complained about massively because it was ringfenced and held at UK level. There were demands for it to be devolved, so we have devolved it and used the Barnett formula, and that is the way the allocations work. The Scottish Government can always spend some of their extra uplift—the largest uplift of a Scottish devolution settlement since devolution began—on supporting the fishing industry, should they so wish.

Yes. It is to deal with a TB hotspot that appeared. By the end of this season there will be no cull licences in any high-intensity or edge area. Everybody has said in their own particular way that we all agree that we have to reduce the incidence of and eradicate bovine TB, and we also want to stop killing badgers, so we have to do more on cattle, which is exactly what the Government wish to do. Cattle measures are the foundation of our eradication programme. That means there should be regular testing, both routine and targeted, using the highly specific skin test, supplemented where appropriate by the highly sensitive interferon-gamma test. We also have robust rules on cattle movements and slaughterhouse surveillance, and tools like the ibTB map to help farmers to make risk-based and informed decisions when they buy or sell stock. But more can be done to strengthen our cattle testing programme. The DEFRA-funded TB advisory service and the TB hub are the go-to advisers in supporting farmers to implement practical biosecurity measures. Simple things such as raising water troughs, securing feed stores and keeping wildlife out of buildings are simple, low-cost steps that make a real difference. Yet I recognise the Godfray panel’s view that more must be done to strengthen biosecurity across the board, so we will focus on what that might look like. One of the most exciting developments in a generation is cattle vaccination. The cattle BCG vaccine, used alongside a new test that can tell the difference between vaccinated cattle among infected animals—the so-called DIVA skin test—is being trialled on farms as we speak. If marketing authorisations are granted by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, we could start using those tools in the next few years. These things are annoyingly slow, but I will see whether there is any way to ensure a speedier way to get those things used. Vaccination is clearly never going to take off if one cannot tell the difference between an infected or vaccinated animal, so it is clear that we have to make progress on that.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your watchful eye in Westminster Hall, Mr Stuart, on this first evening back. I begin by acknowledging the strength of feeling in this debate, including from 170 of my constituents in Wallasey and the 102,000-odd members of the public who signed the petition. For many, the idea of culling badgers—a protected species—is deeply upsetting and even unconscionable, and I understand and respect that view. As many have said, this is a totemic and polarising issue. The fact is that over successive years, hundreds of thousands of badgers have been culled indiscriminately across a vast area, stretching from Cornwall to Cheshire and across to the midlands. For valid reasons, many, including the Labour manifesto, have described the policy as ineffective. I will be clear from the outset that this Government are committed to ending the badger cull. We stand by that commitment, and I say again that the badger cull is ending. We have already taken decisive steps to bring the cull to its closure. Bovine TB has a devastating impact on our farming community, as we have heard in great detail from all parts of the House. It has cost the lives of more than 274,000 cattle, compulsorily slaughtered in England because of the disease. It costs the taxpayer over £100 million a year, and it costs farmers dearly in lost income and extra business costs. We have heard about the stress and mental health problems that waiting for those constant tests have subjected many families to. Far too many farmers have suffered profound stress and hardship as a result. They live with the constant anxiety of regular testing, the financial strain of movement restrictions and the heartbreak of losing affected animals, often reared with care and pride over generations. In the year up until June 2025, more than 21,000 cattle were slaughtered in England for bovine TB control. That is fewer than the year before—but that is little consolation for any farmer who has had to watch one of their animals being taken away. Since 2013, more than 247,000 badgers have been culled under licence. That is a very large figure, and a hard figure to hear. Our challenge is to strike the right balance: tackling bovine TB with urgency while protecting our wildlife. The Government are committed to moving decisively towards a future free from this devastating disease, and to doing so in a way that is effective and that earns the trust of the communities most affected. The petition calls for an immediate end to the badger cull and a stronger focus on cattle-based measures. I want to respond to that clearly, because I understand, and we have heard in this debate, how deeply people care about the issue. This debate comes at an important moment—perhaps slightly too early, I must say, but the petitioners are the petitioners, and we get the debates when we get them—since we are refreshing the bovine TB eradication strategy introduced by our predecessors in 2014. It was they who instigated this cull. A new strategy is being co-designed with farmers, vets, scientists, conservationists and the Government, all of whom will have a voice, in an attempt to deal with some of the polarisation in the debate. It will be informed by independent evidence in the review led by Professor Sir Charles Godfray. The update to that review, which was published on 4 September, has been referred to on several occasions. On the role of badgers, the petition argues that wildlife are being scapegoated. I understand the use of that word, but we must be clear that transmission runs both ways within species and between cattle and badgers, as has been demonstrated repeatedly by using modern technology such as whole-genome sequencing. We must have an honest debate and, to have an effective policy, we must recognise the reality that TB infections go both ways, from one species to another and back again. The Government’s direction of travel, though, is clear: we are investing in non-lethal interventions—non-lethal for badgers, that is—and cattle-focused measures, including both cattle and badger vaccinations, to end the badger cull by the end of the Parliament. The most sustainable way to protect farms and wildlife is by investing in measures to reduce infection in both species, such as badger and cattle vaccination. Sir Charles Godfray’s evidence review concluded that the overall package of interventions—cattle testing, movement controls and on-farm biosecurity alongside the badger cull policy—has contributed to reducing bovine TB in cattle, but it also concluded that it is not statistically possible to isolate the impact of each individual measure. He said that it was possible to control bovine TB effectively both with a badger cull and without one, and therefore we must see how to move forward in the best possible way, given the manifesto commitment on which we were elected last year. The petitioners, and many voices in the debate, argue that badger culling should stop immediately. They say that it lacks solid scientific evidence, it has gone on too long and it takes the focus away from tackling bovine TB in cattle. But, however much one might sympathise with those views, it is not really about choosing between badgers and cattle. The real question is how to take those facts seriously and decide the best way to keep bearing down on bovine TB until we can finally get rid of it. I say again that the badger cull is ending. The 2025 season is nearly over, and this is the final year of industry-led culling in England’s high-risk and edge areas. To provide a little more information about that, at the height of the badger cull there were 73 licences to cull badgers operating up and down the country, and in this season there are 21. By the end of this season only one licensed cull will remain. It will continue until the end of the season and then there will be an analysis to see how effective it has been scientifically. A decision will then be made about whether to continue with that final licence.

Well, I have been in the job a month—I will be more specific when I have had more time to chase the questions I want to ask the appropriate people. However, I will make the observation that covid was a virus, and we are not dealing with a virus in this instance. This disease is difficult to find, pursue and detect because it has evolved to evade detection, which is what these kinds of things tend to do. It is not simple and easy. One has to be careful to ensure that things are safe and not try to chivvy along medical regulators just so that I can make a convenient announcement to Parliament. We need to know that things are safe and effective. As various people have said, if we are to unleash them and they are to be used with the Government’s scientific imprimatur, we had better be right about it; otherwise, we will get into a situation where we cannot tell whether cattle are vaccinated or infected. Once we are in that situation, we cannot ever come back from it. This has to be done in a precautionary way. I am probably as frustrated as the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) by the speed at which it is going, but it will take as long as it has to, with chivvying at an appropriate level. To end the badger cull responsibly we must continue to tackle TB in wildlife using tools that are backed by science. Badger vaccination is not about ignoring the role that badgers play in spreading TB, and it is certainly not about blaming wildlife; it is about reducing infection within badger populations in an area where they pose a risk to cattle without resorting to culling a protected species. That has to be an aim we wish to pursue. I am told that vaccinating 30% of a badger population is effective at achieving the goals we wish to achieve. Multiple studies show that vaccination is an effective way of controlling the disease in badgers, which is why we are scaling up at pace. In 2024, more than 4,000 badgers were vaccinated. That capability will expand further with the introduction of a new badger-vaccination field force next year, which will see us partnering with industry to deliver more vaccination areas. Alongside that, a new national wildlife TB surveillance programme and an updated badger population survey are being put in place to ensure that the field force and other measures are deployed where they will make the greatest difference. When bovine TB hits a farm, it is not just an entry on a spreadsheet or a data point in national statistics; it means months of restrictions, mental strain and real financial jeopardy. National numbers matter, but people live this day after day in the affected areas, which is why our strategy must be practical on the ground, understandable at the kitchen table and, above all, effective. It is also why we are co-designing it with those who face the devastating disease every day, ensuring that their experience and insight shape the solutions we put in place. As I speak, a steering group drawn from the existing bovine TB partnership for England is overseeing several expert working groups involving over 100 individuals. These groups are focused on governance and resourcing, cattle surveillance and breakdown testing, accelerating cattle vaccination, trade and movement, and badgers and other wildlife, as well as how to respond to changing epidemiology. The plan is to present a new strategy next year. In doing so, we will deliver a step change that reflects the best available evidence, the lived experience of those affected and a shared commitment for England to be free of bovine TB by 2038. We will consolidate and strengthen cattle-focused controls, testing, movement, biosecurity and advisory support. We will continue to advance the cattle-vaccination programme at pace—and we will see quite what that means. People with greater minds than mine have talked about the relativity of time, but I want it to happen as quickly as is safely possible. That way, when authorisations are in place, we can begin the roll-out. We are preparing for deployment so that we can go quickly as soon as we get the go ahead. We will scale up badger vaccinations across large, contiguous areas, supported by enhanced wildlife-TB surveillance. This is how we will end the badger cull: by building the capabilities and viable alternatives that make culling less necessary. We should not underestimate the challenge, though. The nature of the disease means the strategy must remain flexible, adapting to the disease picture as that too evolves. The petitioners who made this debate happen want a cattle-centred approach, farmers want certainty, fairness and access to all the tools that work on their farms, and scientists want us to follow the evidence wherever it leads. The strategy refresh is our chance to knit those threads into a durable plan to ensure that we achieve bovine TB-free status in England by 2038. The Government will end the badger cull by the end of this Parliament. We will replace it—safely and credibly—with vaccination, strengthened surveillance, better biosecurity and, crucially, we hope, a cattle vaccine and a DIVA test that can build resilience into the herds. That is how we will reduce disease, costs and stress, protect a much-loved native species and restore hope to the farming families who have lived for too long under the shadow of bovine TB.

I am well aware of the increased risk of disease and issues suddenly emerging, having lived through the last outbreak of foot and mouth in this country, albeit not quite in the way that the shadow Minister did. It can be catastrophic, so it is very important to think about how we can be ready to scale up surveillance very quickly. In her contribution my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) talked about the battle against covid that we all lived through a few years ago and compared it with this battle. Even though the repayment method will be long, money was no object then; in this instance I am afraid that finances and money have to be an object. We have to try to get our surveillance and ability to respond quickly in the best place we can within the resources we have, so there is more of a constraint than there might have been in some of the examples that my hon. Friend used.