Aphra Brandreth MP: speeches

Speeches

• 17 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I rise to support amendments 54 and 55, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, but I will first briefly speak to clause 24, which is an important and long-overdue step towards modernising the Mental Health Act 1983, crucially strengthening the rights, dignity and autonomy of individuals subject to it. The reform of the existing nearest relative provisions, replacing them with a new system that allows for the appointment of a nominated person, is an important part of ensuring that individuals get the right support, and modernises an outdated system. The current model is based on a rigid and outdated hierarchy in which the role of the “nearest relative” is determined by law, not by the wishes of the patient. This one-size-fits-all approach fails to account for the complexities and nuances of individual relationships. It can result in someone unsuitable, or even actively harmful, being placed in a central role in a person’s care and treatment journey. Indeed, the limitations of the system have been acknowledged by practitioners, patients and policymakers alike. It is too often disempowering, and the patient can lose agency at a time when they need to be empowered to feel in control of the situation as much as possible. As the shadow Minister says, clause 24 is the cornerstone of the reforms. It is an important change to the current legislation to reaffirm the commitment to patient-centred care, to dignity and to the principle that those receiving treatment under the Mental Health Act should have a voice in decisions about their support network. The aim of the clause—to put the patient first—is important. It acknowledges that the person best placed to advocate for the patient may not be their closest relative. In some cases, family dynamics are fraught. In others, the designated relative may hold views about treatment that conflict with the patient’s wishes or medical advice. We have seen real-world examples in which the imposition of the “nearest relative” role has led to tension, distress and, ultimately, a breakdown in trust. That is not the kind of environment in which recovery is fostered. Amendments 54 and 55 would address the specific issue of nominated persons and those with parental responsibility for children under the age of 16. It is important that we consider situations in which a young person may be in a vulnerable position and their decision on who their nominated person should be may not be in their best interests. We have a particular duty to ensure that children are safeguarded. Clause 24 as it stands will allow under-16s to choose someone who is not the parent to have significant power, including the ability to discharge the child from hospital. We must listen to and actively try to support any young person who needs that kind of intervention—it is not that their views should not be considered. However, there is a very real risk that a vulnerable child or teenager might be coerced by or under the control of an older partner, for example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth pointed out. Perhaps they might choose an older friend. We need to consider that a decision made by the nominated person, such as an older friend, may have implications for those with parental responsibility. For example, that older friend may decide to discharge a child from hospital and into the care of the parents, who would not provide advocacy or be part of that decision making. The Minister said that safeguards will be put in place, but can he expand on that? There are some real concerns here. Let us consider a situation in which there has been a decision by a court to determine which parent has responsibility for the child. If complex family issues have already been considered by the family court, it is right that the decision be followed. I respectfully ask the Minister to reconsider this point. We must respect the fact that parents of those under 16 are best placed to advocate for, support and act for their children. This is about capacity, consent and, ultimately, safeguarding.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to clause 41, which brings into sharper focus two pillars of a fair and rights-based mental health system: the provision of clear information to patients and the strengthening of independent mental health advocacy. It rightly recognises that, when a person is detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, often during a period of acute crisis and difficulty in their life, they need to feel that their clinical needs are being met, but in a way that respects them as individuals, with the same entitlements to dignity and agency as any other member of our society. The clause provides for informal patients to be eligible for an independent mental health advocate. I welcome the extension to enable more individuals to access this vital advocacy. It empowers patients to know that independent advocacy is available, but we must ensure that there are sufficient resources so that those who choose this help are given sufficient support when they are in a potentially vulnerable position. As someone representing a constituency that is in England but borders Wales, I also welcome that these changes bring care into line so that advocacy help is offered to informal patients, regardless of which side of the border they are accessing treatment. The clause places a renewed duty on services to ensure that information is given to patients clearly, promptly and in a form that they can understand. It introduces an obligation for advocacy providers to determine, through an interview, whether a qualifying patient wishes to use the service. This support is important; no person should be expected to navigate the complexities of mental health legislation, or their rights under it, without proper guidance. However, where there is a duty “on hospital managers and others to notify providers of advocacy services about qualifying patients”, can the Minister clarify who is meant by “others”? Will there be a list of people and roles who are given this responsibility? The role of an independent mental health advocate is vital. These individuals can be a lifeline. They can help people to understand their rights and any medical treatment, and crucially, can support an individual to have their say about any treatment. Clause 41 rightly reinforces the importance of independent mental health advocates, and it is important that we match that ambition with the legal and practical steps to support them. It is entirely right that we welcome the recognition of the role of independent mental health advocates, who serve a vital function in ensuring that patients’ voices are heard and their views represented, especially when navigating what can be an incredibly complex legal and clinical environment. Their independence is fundamental to not only their effectiveness but the confidence that patients and families can place in the system, which brings me back to my point. It is therefore important that we support independent mental health advocates with the resources that they need to do their job effectively. If we are to rely further on advocates, we need to ensure that they are in a position to deal with that, so that we do not create statutory entitlements that are difficult to act upon. Actions, as well as words, are needed. At present, many areas already struggle with advocacy coverage. If we now place additional expectations on the service, and I believe that we will through this provision, we must ensure that there are sufficient numbers of trained, experienced independent mental health advocates across the country to meet rising demand. Can the Minister reassure the Committee that the necessary people with the skills and training are available to fulfil this expanded role? We must also consider the patients’ experience, as has been the focus of so many of the remarks made in the Committee today. Again, I emphasise the vulnerability of patients at times of crisis. If we are to tell patients that support in the form of an advocate is there for them, we need to ensure that it is accessible and easy to reach and understand. Clause 41 moves us in the right direction, but implementation is everything. It must be backed by local accountability, adequate funding and clear operational guidance. This includes ensuring that all patients, regardless of background, language or capacity, are given support that is appropriate and effective. It is vital to consider the wider implications of this clause. The reinforcement of the independent mental health advocate’s involvement should be mirrored by greater investment in advocacy services, stronger integration with care planning and more regular engagement with patients themselves on how these services work in practice. In our earlier discussions, my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon suggested that we use trials, which could also be considered here to ensure that, as changes are brought in, they are matched by appropriate service levels. I am largely supportive of clause 41, which I think moves us in the right direction towards a transparent mental health system that is there for patients, ensuring that they have a voice and are not an afterthought. As long as it is deliverable in practice, and does not give false hope to patients, the clause strengthens the Bill.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a wonderful point about the new clause I have tabled. Does he agree with me that this is about improving our environment and reducing pollution, and we need to think about all of that when we consider this Bill?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I love trees, which is why I rise to support new clause 63 tabled in my name. I am sure that all of us in this House recognise the value of trees—not just their ecological importance, but the character and beauty that they bring to our communities and high streets. I hope that I can demonstrate why amending the rules to allow for sensible guidance on planting trees can help to liberate local authorities from their default, over-cautious position, and kick-start a tree-planting revolution. New clause 63 seeks to remove some of the ambiguity and misconceptions surrounding the regulation of tree planting along highways. The Highways Act 1980 includes provision for local authorities to maintain free-flowing roads, but those provisions can and have been misinterpreted to block tree planting. In particular, the licensing rules established in section 142 of the Act should be relaxed to make it easier for local residents to plant trees. Too often, even well-meaning councils impose unrealistic demands. In Windsor and Maidenhead, for example, individuals planting trees must pay between £500 and £1,000 in administrative fees and secure £10 million in public liability insurance—hardly encouraging. Hampshire county council’s strict interpretation of section 142(5) has led to a one-metre buffer around utilities, blocking many ideal planting sites, despite minimal risk to those services. Let me briefly touch on the environmental case. A Woodland Trust report, “The benefits to people of trees outside woods”, found that roadside trees are highly effective at capturing pollutants—especially important, given that traffic is a major source of air pollution in the UK. A study by Lancaster University even showed that planting silver birch on a terraced street reduced harmful particulate matter inside nearby homes by more than 50%. Trees also play a critical role in supporting biodiversity; common roadside species such as lime and flowering cherry trees are not only beautiful, but vital for pollinators, helping to maintain healthy ecosystems. Cheshire is a proud dairy and beef farming county. We have some of the most carbon-efficient cows in the world, and we should be proud of that record, but if we can further improve our environmental impact, that can only be a good thing. In rural areas, having tree-lined roads can help to reduce ammonium levels and impacts on habitats and the surrounding environment. Again, placement of trees matters; having more trees near semi-natural habitats that need protection has a greater impact than having more trees in established woodland. Of course safety must remain a priority, and not every road is suitable for tree planting, but where space and conditions allow, trees can improve road safety. Studies have shown that tree-lined streets feel narrower, naturally encouraging drivers to reduce their speed. There are many more benefits that I could speak to, such as improved soil quality, but time is short, so I will finish by touching on the aesthetic benefit of trees near highways. They really do make a difference. They stand the test of time, they add character to the area, they take on cultural significance, and they improve our mental health, our perceptions and our appreciation of the areas in which we live. By amending this Bill through new clause 63, I hope we can empower local authorities to plant the right trees in the right areas where there is local support, and I am confident that we will notice the benefits of doing so.

• 21 May 2025 · Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. Before I start, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as a director of a veterinary business. I thank hon. Members for joining the Committee to consider this important Bill, which will do so much for animal welfare and supporting our farming communities. The Bill was initially introduced in the last Parliament. I am grateful to those who have worked so hard to see it progress, and I welcome the new Government’s continuing the support for the legislation. I have spoken to farmers in Chester South and Eddisbury who have seen their livestock brutally attacked. I have heard at first hand the very real impacts, both emotionally and financially, so I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today. I will set out why the Bill is vital to help better protect livestock, support farmers and enable more effective enforcement and efficient use of police time. The financial impacts of livestock attacks are substantial. The National Farmers Union estimates that UK farm animals worth approximately £1.8 million were severely injured or killed by dogs in 2024. But it is not just the financial cost to which I wish to draw attention; there is also an animal welfare cost to livestock worrying. I represent a largely rural constituency, where the predominant mode of farming is beef and dairy. I met a farmer from Kelsall, a rural village in my constituency, who showed me pictures of his cattle following a livestock attack. A dog had broken into a barn where calves were resting and had attacked them in their pens. I am sure the Committee does not need me to go into detail about the extent to which the calves were injured. Needless to say, it was a horrific attack. That is just one example, but there can be other horrific consequences. If attacked, pregnant livestock often miscarry, and there are instances of mothers being separated from their young, leading to hypothermia and starvation. Let us also not forget the human toll of a livestock attack. I have only seen pictures of the aftermath—thankfully, I have never seen an attack unfold before my eyes—but for farmers witnessing it, it can be extremely emotionally distressing. Of course, we want and need to see dog owners behaving responsibly in the countryside, but we must recognise that there is a gap in existing legislation to support a more effective and efficient collection of evidence following an attack, and to implement the necessary deterrents to better encourage responsible ownership and handling of dogs around livestock. It is for those reasons that I have introduced the Bill, and why we must pass it. I will now set out the Bill’s clauses and explain why they are necessary. Clause 1 gives effect to the schedule, which sets out amendments to the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, relating to scope and the consequences of an offence. Times have changed since the 1953 Act came into force. The number of livestock farmed in England and Wales has doubled, bringing agriculture closer to those of us who use the countryside recreationally. The Bill is intended to tackle the issue of livestock worrying in a way that constructively strengthens existing legislation to decrease incidents of livestock worrying and attacks. In doing so, the Bill focuses on three key areas. First, it will modernise the definitions and scope of the 1953 Act and extend the locations and species in scope—to include roads and paths, and to cover species such as camelids. Secondly, important changes will be made to strengthen police powers, including powers of entry, the seizure and detention of dogs and the collection of evidence where samples and impressions can be taken from dogs and injured livestock. Finally, the Bill will increase the maximum penalty from a fine of £1,000 to an unlimited fine to act as a deterrent. Clause 2 will amend existing powers available to the police to seize and detain dogs suspected of having attacked or worried livestock. Existing legislation allows the police to seize an unaccompanied dog that is believed to have attacked or worried livestock, to identify the owner of the dog and to detain it until the owner has claimed it and paid any associated expenses. The Bill will go further, providing greater clarity and confidence to farmers. The proposed reforms extend the powers so that the police can seize and detain a dog that they have reasonable grounds to believe has attacked or worried livestock and may attack or worry livestock again, for the purpose of preventing repeat incidents. Extending the police powers is crucial, and it is appropriate that the deterrent properly reflects the significant consequences of an attack. Clause 2 addresses the limited scope of current powers at the disposal of the police and strengthens deterrence, helping to address the issue of reoffending. Subsections (1) and (2) of proposed new section 2 of the 1953 Act explain that a police constable may seize and detain a dog that they believe to have “attacked or worried livestock on agricultural land or on a road or path, and nobody present…admits to being the dog’s owner or in charge of it.” Building on the current power in section 2(2) of the 1953 Act, proposed new subsection (2) sets out for how long a dog seized under subsection (1) may be detained, namely “until the owner has claimed it and paid all expenses incurred by reason of its seizure and detention.” To give greater clarity, subsections (3) and (4) are necessary to explain that seized dogs may be disposed of if the owner does not claim the dog and pay the associated expenses of seizure and detention within seven days. They clarify that if the police gift or sell the unclaimed dog to someone, that person becomes the dog’s owner. Subsections (5) and (6) explain what kind of register is to be kept of seized dogs. The register must include a brief description of the dog, the date of seizure and, if the dog is disposed of, how. The register must be available for inspection by the public and free of charge. Subsection (7) explains that the disposing of a dog under proposed new section 2 of the 1953 Act includes: “causing it to be disposed of, and destroying it or causing it to be destroyed, but does not include disposing of it for the purposes of vivisection.” Subsections (8) and (9) explain that a dog may be seized and detained until the end of court proceedings if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the dog may otherwise pose a risk of attacking or worrying livestock again. Quite often, the dog owner has shown no signs of taking preventive measures against attacks or worrying following previous incidents, such as by putting their dog on a lead near livestock when the dog has previously shown signs of being dangerously out of control or has attacked or worried livestock. Both those factors could be considered relevant to a constable’s assessment of whether they believe that a dog suspected of attacking or worrying livestock could do so again. Finally, section 3 of the Dogs Act 1906—so far as still in force by virtue of section 68(2) of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005—will be repealed, as it is no longer needed in consequence of the provision made by clause 2. Clause 3 will introduce new powers to improve the police’s ability to investigate incidents of dogs attacking or worrying livestock by enabling the collection of samples and impressions. This concern was raised directly with me by farmers in my constituency. Farms are businesses, so when a livestock attack takes place, it is understandable that farmers should seek justice. If there was an arson attack on a shop, for instance, I am sure we would all agree that the perpetrator should be held to account for their actions. Attacks on livestock too often go unprosecuted because collecting evidence takes too long and the powers afforded to the police to do so are limited. Subsections (1) to (4) of proposed new section 2ZA of the 1953 Act will enable a police constable to take samples or impressions from a dog believed to have attacked or worried livestock, or from livestock, where this might provide evidence of an offence having been committed under section 1 of that Act. Crucially, subsection (5) explains: “If taking a sample or impression…would amount to veterinary surgery, it must be done by a veterinary surgeon.” Subsection (6) explains how long samples or impressions may be retained: “A sample or impression taken…may be retained until an investigation has been carried out into whether an offence under section 1 has been committed…or if proceedings are brought…until those proceedings have been determined or withdrawn.” Veterinary bodies, forensic specialists and the police have been consulted on this new provision, affording them the opportunity to feed into its development. Lastly, subsection (7) defines the meaning of the words “sample”, “veterinary surgeon” and “veterinary surgery” for the purpose of clause 3. These are all important steps to increase the effective collection of evidence following an attack. Clause 4 will enable a justice of the peace, also known as a magistrate, to authorise the police to enter and search premises where they believe there is a dog that has attacked or worried livestock. Currently, the police can enter and search premises with a warrant from a justice of the peace to identify a dog that is believed to have worried livestock. It is proposed to extend this to allow the police also to obtain a warrant to enter premises to seize and detain the dog, as outlined in clause 2; to take a sample or impression, as outlined in clause 3; or to search for and seize evidence of an offence. Specifically, subsections (1) and (2) of proposed new section 2A of the 1953 Act will allow the police to apply for a warrant to enter and search premises to identify, seize and detain, or to take samples or impressions from, a dog that is believed to have attacked or worried livestock. Subsections (3) and (4) will allow the police to apply for a warrant to enter and search premises to seize any evidence of an offence under section 1 of the 1953 Act. Examples of such evidence could include a bloody collar or towel. Subsection (5) sets out that the warrant may authorise the police to use reasonable force, if necessary. These new powers are needed to allow the police to gather evidence to investigate these crimes effectively. I have already touched on the frustration that farmers feel when an attack goes unprosecuted, and this Bill will help to increase the chances of a just outcome. Clause 5 includes a standard provision on the extent, commencement and short title of the Act, once it receives Royal Assent. The Act will extend to England and Wales. I felt it was important to speak to people on both sides of the border to better understand the situation in Wales; I put on record my thanks to Rob Taylor, the Welsh wildlife and rural police and crime co-ordinator, for his work in this field over many years, and for taking the time to meet me to talk through livestock worrying in Wales and offer his support for the Bill. The Bill will come into force three months after it is passed. Clause 5 also includes transitional provision to clarify the availability of the new powers in clauses 2 to 4 in relation to any, or any alleged, incident of livestock worrying or attack that takes place before the Bill comes into force. The Act’s short title will be the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Act 2025. The schedule to the Bill will make several amendments to the 1953 Act to extend its scope. It also provides clarity on offences, the applicable penalty and court powers. Specifically, paragraph 1 brings incidents of dogs attacking or worrying livestock on roads or paths within the scope of the offence in section 1 of the Act. This will provide greater protection for livestock in instances where they are moved along a road or path to another field or a milking parlour, for example. For clarity, paragraph 1 also updates the terminology used in relation to attacks. “Attacking” livestock is dealt with separately from “worrying” livestock. The term “worrying” may dismiss the severity of some offences. Adding the word “attacking” better highlights the violent nature of incidents involving attacks on livestock. The provision will not create a new offence, but will clarify the language throughout the 1953 Act. Both attacking and worrying are already covered in that Act; however, that is not clear throughout. Paragraph 1 also sets out the penalty for the offence in section 1 of the 1953 Act. It is currently set at a maximum fine of £1,000. The maximum penalty will be increased to an unlimited fine to act as a deterrent. It is worth noting that the level of fines will not affect the level of compensation a farmer may receive, and farmers can still seek compensation through civil claims. Paragraph 1 will amend the 1953 Act to exempt a dog owner from liability for an offence under section 1 where they can prove that the dog was in the charge of another person at the time without the owner’s consent, such as if the dog had been stolen. Paragraph 1 will also empower a court to order a convicted offender to pay expenses associated with the seizure and detention of a dog, irrespective of whether the court imposes a fine for the offence. Any sum that a person is ordered to pay will be treated for the purposes of enforcement as if it were compensation payable under a compensation order. Paragraph 2 expands the definition of “livestock” in the 1953 Act to include camelids, such as llamas and alpacas, as they are commonly farmed. I will take a moment to address the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin. She is very knowledgeable on these matters, and I thank her for agreeing to sit on this Committee and for her support. We are often in rural affairs debates in the Chamber or Westminster Hall together, and her contributions are always well informed. As a farmer herself, I am sure she will agree that the Bill is necessary and welcome. The hon. Lady’s amendment would require that a dog be kept on a lead of 1.8 metres or less in a field or enclosure containing sheep, or in sight of the person in charge, who should be confident that the dog will recall on command. Although I understand why she tabled the amendment, it is worth noting that the 1953 Act already makes it clear that a dog is “at large” if it is “not on a lead or otherwise under close control”. That approach places certain requirements on dog walkers to behave responsibly, and it provides sufficient flexibility for a court to assess whether, on the facts before it, there is evidence that the dog was under close control. Such evidence does not need to be limited to proving specific elements. Setting out the meaning of “close control” also risks inadvertently narrowing the circumstances in which a court would naturally conclude that a dog was not under close control. Furthermore, the countryside code highlights that it is best practice “to keep your dog on a lead around livestock”, including sheep. Because there are existing provisions and guidance, and because there is flexibility for judgment in the courts, I urge the hon. Lady not to press her amendment. I hope I have laid out clearly why the Bill is necessary to support our farmers, reduce livestock attacks and better equip the police with the powers they need to investigate, prosecute and deter livestock attacks. I hope the Committee will support the progress of this important Bill.

• 21 May 2025 · Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for chairing this Committee, Mr Western; it has been a pleasure to serve under you. I thank the Minister for his support for the Bill and those who have worked incredibly hard on it behind the scenes. I am extremely grateful to all Members who have served on the Committee for taking the time to listen to why I and others feel the Bill is necessary, and for all their thoughtful contributions. At the heart of this Bill are farmers and livestock. The Bill will give farmers greater confidence that livestock attacks will be dealt with in a timely, effective and appropriate manner, reflective of the damage an attack can do. It is our hope that deterrence in the form of greater penalties and powers for the police to investigate livestock attacks will reduce the number of those attacks. The fewer farmers who witness an attack, deal with severely injured animals in the aftermath and face the economic costs as a result, the better. They deserve this Bill, and I am sure that they, like me, are incredibly grateful to all who have given their support today. Question put and agreed to. Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Amendment proposed : 1, schedule, page 5, line 8, at end insert— “(3A) In subsection (2), omit ‘(that is to say not on a lead or otherwise under close control)’. (3B) After subsection (2) insert— ‘(2ZA) For the purposes of subsection (2), a dog is “at large” unless— (a) it is on a lead of a length of 1.8 metres or less, or (b) it is within sight of a person and the person— (i) remains aware of the dog’s actions, and (ii) has reason to be confident that the dog will return to the person reliably and promptly on the person’s command.’”— (Ann Davies.) This amendment would change the definition of the term “at large” for the purposes of the offence under section 1 of the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953. Question put, That the amendment be made. Question negatived. Schedule agreed to. Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.

• 15 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The new clause touches on the important issue of the safety and accountability of products sold through online marketplaces. In today’s consumer environment, the shift towards online purchasing has transformed the landscape. That has brought convenience and choice, but it has also introduced new risks that were not foreseen when our existing consumer protection laws were drafted. Conservative shadow Ministers and colleagues have met with product safety organisations, and we recognise the real concerns that have been raised. The number of unsafe goods entering the market is deeply troubling. Recent investigations have found that 85% of toys tested from online marketplaces were unsafe, and that nearly 90% of products entering the UK fail basic safety tests. Those are not abstract figures; this is about the health and safety of our constituents. As the hon. Member for Wokingham said, some of the risks to children from unsafe toys are serious and extremely worrying. Particular concerns have been raised about dangerous incidents involving lithium batteries in e-bikes and e-scooters, which have led to fires, injuries and, tragically, deaths. These are serious and growing risks that demand serious attention. It is therefore right that online marketplaces take greater responsibility in this space. We expect the platforms to remove unsafe products swiftly, co-operate fully with enforcement authorities and ensure that robust safety checks are in place before products are ever listed. At the same time, we must approach this matter in a proportionate and measured way. The Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to regulate, and it is appropriate that the powers are flexible and future-facing. We must ensure that regulation supports consumer confidence without stifling innovation or imposing undue burdens on small and emerging businesses, particularly those that are trying to compete fairly in a complex marketplace. A safer marketplace benefits everyone. It is the foundation of consumer trust and business growth: if consumers feel confident that unsafe products are being properly policed, they are more likely to engage in the marketplace, and that in turn supports a vibrant and competitive economy. There is a clear need for ongoing scrutiny in this area, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how these important issues will be addressed as we take the Bill forward.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course we need to think about the EU, but we also need to think more widely and broadly, and look at the opportunities across the globe. A good example of that is, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire rightly pointed out, our accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. That is a major economic partnership with Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. To join the CPTPP, the UK underwent a comprehensive review to ensure that our domestic regulations were compatible with those of its members. That progress was possible because we were no longer locked into EU rules. We need to be careful here. If the Bill’s powers allowed us to simply fall back into alignment with EU laws through dynamic alignment, we would end up undoing the very advantages that regulatory independence has given us. That is why amendment 6 is so important: it would make sure that if we chose to align with any foreign law, EU or otherwise, it would be to the version of that law as it exists on a specific date, not as it may evolve in the future. In other words, we keep control: we know exactly what we are aligning with and we do so deliberately. As the Opposition continue to stress, the Bill clearly indicates a move towards dynamic alignment with the EU without oversight. It is clear that the intention is to see our regulations automatically change every time the EU updates its regulations. Dynamic alignment would bring businesses uncertainty by requiring continuous adjustments, and such changes might require businesses to adapt and potentially bear the costs of the changes. As was pointed out in debates in the other place, EU rules are not always made with our economy in mind. They are sometimes protectionist, or designed to benefit specific interests in the single market. We must be sure that the Bill does not jeopardise any progress we have made with new partners, or tie us to a regulatory environment that is not in our best interests. Dynamic alignment would effectively mean outsourcing decisions about UK product standards to a foreign body. That does not sit well with the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and, frankly, does not give British businesses the clarity or stability that they need. Finally, amendment 22 would add a simple but important safeguard: it would require the Secretary of State to publish an explanatory statement if the Government plan to base regulations on the law of just one foreign market. It is a transparency measure. If we are going to align UK rules with those of another country or bloc, the public and Parliament deserve to know why that is the right course of action. The amendment would help to ensure that decisions are made in the national interest and, importantly, that they are properly scrutinised. I ask again why Ministers are so unwilling to explain their decisions. Why would they not want transparency? If their decisions are in the public interest, they surely would not have any issue with supporting amendment 22 and agreeing to publish an explanatory statement in relevant cases. The Government have argued that clause 2 provides flexibility and continuity. I understand that perspective, but flexibility should not come at the expense of democratic oversight, and continuity should not mean quietly reverting to rules that we have worked hard to move beyond. The amendments in this group would not prevent alignment where it is helpful; they would ensure that alignment is clear, accountable and firmly in our control. That is a balanced approach that recognises the opportunities of global trade while respecting the sovereignty of this House. I hope the Committee will support the amendments.

• 30 Apr 2025 · Family Farms: Impact of Spring Statement · Hansard source

  More

  I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Not only is Labour’s family farm tax threatening the future of farming in Wales; it is also a direct attack on farmers right across the UK. In England, the sustainable farming incentive scheme was closed with no notice. Meanwhile, in Labour’s spring statement the Government brought forward: increases in national insurance, hitting all farmers once again; their tax on double cab pick-ups; plus changes to furnished holiday lets, penalising farmers who have actively diversified. Can the Minister explain to the Welsh agricultural sector why the Government are carrying out an all-out assault on its way of life?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Draft Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. It is an attack on family farmers, rural communities and all the businesses that rely on those farmers to keep our rural communities going. As I said, it is unsustainable. That should stop us all in our tracks and make us think of the impact of having a country without farming. The cash-flow challenges that face farmers are well known. If we remove another layer of the support provided to them, as we are debating today, the negative consequences will continue to grow. The Government will be putting our food security at further risk and causing detriment to the stewardship of our countryside. The personal impact on farmers will be significant—and ultimately, that is what it comes down to. It is not just about figures; it is about people. This measure is another economic burden that will be felt by farmers, and I can assure the Minister that the stress and uncertainty that they have been put under by this Government are taking their toll. I conclude my remarks with the same message that I have asked the Government to heed on numerous occasions in the main Chamber, in Westminster Hall debates and in meetings: “Please consider the real impact of the relentless attack on the people who provide our food, care for our countryside and maintain our rural economies.” There is so much to do to reverse the damage done to our farming communities since July, but we can start with the measure we are debating here.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Draft Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak on yet another attack by this Government on our farming community. The decision to punish and penalise farmers by reducing the delinked payments they receive from April 2025 will have a hugely detrimental impact on the farming community in my Chester South and Eddisbury constituency, and indeed across the country. Delinked payments are an important transitional mechanism to new schemes, and an important income stream in themselves. The accelerated reduction in delinked payment rates, along with the other measures we have already heard about—the changes to agricultural property relief, the unreasonably abrupt halting of all future SFI applications with immediate effect, rather than the six weeks’ notice that farmers were led to believe that they would be given, and the ever-increasing cost of running a farming operation, from equipment to supplies—means we must ask the Government this: when will they give farmers a break? That is the message I hear when I speak to farmers in Cheshire. They have no confidence in this Government or in their management of the economic conditions to farm. There is a genuine, deep concern among farmers that their livelihoods are unsustainable under the current Government.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Draft Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  On the Minister’s point about the SFI—“When it’s spent, it’s spent”—when did he know that the SFI budget had been spent in full? How long did he know it before he made the announcement to farmers, without giving them the minimum six weeks’ notice that had been promised?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Draft Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  What is my hon. Friend’s view on the fact that this dramatic reduction in delinked payments does not seem to align with the Government’s claim that food security is national security? How can that be, when farmers in this country do not have any certainty?

• 19 Mar 2025 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Bill is yet another example of legislation from this Government that breaks their manifesto promises, harms local business, negatively impacts our constituents and limits the prospects of growth in my local economy of Chester South and Eddisbury and, indeed, the country. Fundamentally, these changes will hit working people the hardest—the very people the Chancellor said would be shielded from the impacts of the Bill will be the most affected. It will mean lower wages, higher unemployment and increased costs for businesses, resulting in higher prices in the shops. Do not just take my word for it: the Office for Budget Responsibility has stated that “additional payroll costs for employers are passed through into lower wages.” When I speak with business owners in my constituency, they say they feel like they are swimming against the tide, from the NIC increases to the reduction in business rates relief. The recurring message from every company I speak to is that confidence in the economy is down. I must ask the Minister: how is that conducive to growth? I will speak to two of the amendments. Exempting hospices from this damaging increase in employer national insurance contributions is the right thing to do. I have had the pleasure of visiting both the hospice of the Good Shepherd in Backford and St Luke’s hospice in Winsford, which provide a vital service to the most vulnerable of my constituents at the most difficult time in their lives. They provide the very best care and support, and I encourage the Minister to visit and see for himself the warm, compassionate and welcoming environment that they offer, which reflects the attitude of the doctors, nurses and, indeed, all the staff who go above and beyond in their work. The financial implications of an increase in national insurance contributions and the resulting consequences for services and staff will be hugely damaging. Those hospices have shared with me their challenges with recruitment and their deep concern that these tax rises will make paying their staff in line with what their colleagues receive in the NHS even harder than it already is.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The petition that we debate has been signed by 494 of my constituents. Many of those signatories will be farmers operating on multi-generational farms across Cheshire but, signing alongside those farmers and families, there are many more who are deeply concerned about the changes to agricultural property relief and its wider impact on shop owners, food producers and the wider local economy, which will suffer as a result of this policy. Our community has come together to speak up because people understand how important farming is to our local economy, to our food security and to the sustainability of our countryside. Without farming, the local economy in Chester South and Eddisbury would greatly suffer. I will briefly share some of the knock-on impacts of this ill-thought-through policy. In Cheshire, we have some of the best beef and dairy stock in the country and have therefore attracted national and multinational suppliers, who have brought millions of pounds into our economy. If hon. Members had a Müller yoghurt for breakfast this morning, it was probably produced in my constituency, in Chester, with Cheshire dairy produce. Or maybe they enjoyed some Cheshire cheese for lunch—again, a product of the Cheshire food industry. I personally recommend Cheshire ice cream—without doubt the best in the country. Suppliers and manufacturers from across Cheshire provide a significant boost to our local economy. They are employers, innovators and investors, but they cannot do what they do without the supply produced by farmers. Cheshire food produce is vital to some of our best-loved brands but, as in many rural areas, it is often the independent retailers and high street shops that stimulate our economy the most. Without sustainable local produce, shops will lose the unique selling point that sets them apart and our local economy will suffer as a result. Less than a fortnight ago, I was delighted to welcome to my constituency the Leader of His Majesty’s Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch). We started the day at Top O The Town farm in Broomhall, farmed by Richard Davenport, his son Sam and his father John—three generations working together, and one of many local examples of a multi-generational dairy farm, sharing knowledge from one generation to the next, learning, innovating and growing the farm, while employing people locally. Yet the incentives to invest capital on the farm or in measures to improve sustainability and ensure the continuation of farming for the long term are under serious threat as a result of this policy decision. The economic case is clear, but I will also briefly mention the impact on the mental health of rural and agricultural communities. Farmers face adversity, challenges and stress every single day. There is little that they can control, and this Budget has now taken away their one security: the ability to leave their farm to the next generation. The implications for mental health have already been seen in the most tragic circumstances. We must all stand together and tell the Government that the family farm tax must stop.

• 11 Nov 2024 · Mental Health: Farming and Agricultural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to have secured a debate on the vital and pertinent issue of mental health in farming and agricultural communities. It is sadly no exaggeration to say that we have a mental health crisis in our rural and agricultural communities. In January 2021, the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution launched a large research project called the big farming survey. The audience of the survey was 15,000 farmers, contractors and their households, and its aim was to achieve a better understanding of the health and wellbeing of the farming community in England and Wales. The report found that the farming community has lower than average mental wellbeing compared with the wider UK population. A point of concern is that over a third of those who completed the survey had significantly low mental wellbeing scores. Worryingly, a similar number said that they were probably or possibly depressed, according to NHS thresholds.

• 11 Nov 2024 · Mental Health: Farming and Agricultural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes an important point: this issue impacts every part of our Union. I will refer to the impact on young people later in my speech. To go back to the RABI survey, the report found that the farming community has lower than average mental wellbeing compared with the wider UK population. A point of concern is that over a third of those who completed the survey had significantly low mental wellbeing scores. Worryingly, a similar number said that they were probably or possibly depressed. Nearly half of respondents said that they were experiencing some form of anxiety. Tragically, one in five respondents knew someone who had attempted to take their own life. I remind the House that the survey had 15,000 responses, so that is a shockingly high statistic, and I hope that its gravity hits home with Members across the House. Since the report was launched in January 2021, things have not become any easier for farmers and the rural community. Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, and its consequences for energy and fertiliser prices, and for the flow of commodities such as grain and oilseeds, have caused farmers a great deal of concern. Economic factors such as inflation have also hit farmers hard, and like several places across the country, we in Cheshire have had a particularly bad year with regard to rainfall. Those problems all compound existing challenges, thereby putting a significant strain on farmers who are already under huge pressure.

• 11 Nov 2024 · Mental Health: Farming and Agricultural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Member for mentioning those excellent organisations; I will note others later in my speech. For all those reasons, this debate and the actions and commitments from the Minister are important. Women are an often overlooked group when we talk about rural mental health, particularly young women. There are inspiring examples of women who run farms and contribute a great deal to the agricultural sector. Of course, women are almost always involved in a farming operation, even if they are not always hands-on in the yard or fields.

• 11 Nov 2024 · Mental Health: Farming and Agricultural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend always makes such pertinent points. I know the importance he places on issues surrounding food security: he works extremely hard to highlight the challenges that farmers face all around them, and to ensure that they get a fair price from suppliers. Mental health problems are also more prevalent in agricultural communities because of the volatility of farming. Farmers do not enjoy the luxury of stability and are vulnerable to shocks such as adverse weather and flooding, health issues within herds, such as bovine tuberculosis, and economic problems. Agricultural policy ought to create stability for farmers, not more uncertainty. I will speak more about that issue shortly. There are many reasons why rural mental health is disproportionately worse, but I hope that the three I have mentioned give the House an idea of why I secured this debate. I have three asks of the Government; I hope that the Minister will be receptive and will commit to working alongside colleagues across the House and within Government to make real progress. My first request is that the Government take an integrated approach. I humbly suggest to the Minister that that has been an issue with recent Government policy, particularly in relation to agricultural property relief. Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs should have been in the room when the decision was made to change APR. If they were in the room, their priority and their plea to the Treasury should have been the impact on family farms, food security and the local economy. DEFRA Ministers should also be involved in many cross-governmental discussions. We need a joined-up approach whereby farmers and the rural community are consistently represented by Ministers who have their best interests at heart. Only then can we hope to see a policy that does not cause the agricultural community more concern, leading to further uncertainty and exacerbating the challenges. The decision on APR has once again brought rural mental health to the forefront. We have seen too many tragic stories in the papers. I hope that this is a wake-up call to the Government to start taking rural policy seriously, and not see farmers as a community to exploit. My second ask of the Minister is that a specific strategy be put in place for young people who live in rural communities. Statistics show a significant uptick in mental health problems among young people, particularly after the pandemic, but many of the problems that I have outlined as compounding factors making rural mental health worse are even more prominent among younger people. Research conducted by Yellow Wellies shows that 95% of farmers under 40 believe that mental health is the biggest hidden problem facing farmers today. That is a shockingly high statistic. We know that there is a shortage of young people entering the agricultural sector. That shortage is very often driven by the isolation of rural areas and by the lack of opportunity. If we want the countryside to thrive and farming to be a successful and attractive sector, we must do more to support young people. An important part of that is making sure that their mental health is in as good a place as it can be, so I ask the Minister to reassure the House that this will be a priority for him, and to meet me and representatives from the Cheshire Young Farmers’ Clubs to discuss how the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs can better understand the mental health pressures on young people in rural areas. My final ask is that we make sure that farmers are at the centre of policy decisions that relate to rural areas and the agricultural sector. The ask is simple but very necessary. When the Government are formulating policy, I urge them to think of its implications and consequences. I ask them to think about the motivations behind the policy, and to remind themselves of the motivations behind our farmers’ work. They are motivated by service to our country, by providing food and caring for our countryside, and by being part of their local community, supporting friends and family, and working to support the local economy. Farmers are part of the fabric of our country, the backbone of local economies and stalwarts in our communities. When Ministers feed into policy, I ask that they remember that and reflect the values of the rural and agricultural communities. If Ministers do that, we can go a long way towards improving mental health in areas where that is so desperately needed.

• 11 Nov 2024 · Mental Health: Farming and Agricultural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. The sector faces a wide range of challenges, and of course, the decisions that the Government are making will contribute in part to some of those challenges. Some are outside the control of all of us, the weather being one example. I represent Chester South and Eddisbury, a constituency with a large rural area. Because of the nature of Cheshire’s ground and topography, dairy is the predominant mode of farming locally. That brings additional challenges through the risks of animal disease outbreaks, and their financial and emotional consequences. I would like to take a moment to share some of the very real stories that demonstrate why I have asked for today’s debate, because behind every statistic is a personal story. There are families, loved ones, friends and communities who are deeply affected. Those of us who represent rural and agricultural communities know that the suicide rate among farmers is tragically high. Sadly, even in the short time that I have had the privilege of representing Chester South and Eddisbury, I have had examples in my constituency that have caused a great deal of pain to the families and the surrounding area. When something like this happens, it rocks a tight-knit community to its core, and the impact is felt by many. Only last week, I heard of a tragic incident where a daughter found her father after he had taken his own life in one of the barns on their family farm. In a tribute, the daughter wrote of how her father worked so incredibly hard, and how proud he was to have increased the acreage and yield of the family farm during his stewardship. He was immensely proud of the operation he had built. His daughter summed up the vocation of farming in her online tribute: “Farmers work harder and longer than most other trades and earn significantly less. We love what we do, or we wouldn’t do it. We feed the nation to the best of our abilities”. I cannot begin to imagine what the families of those two farmers are going through, but as I said earlier, such cases are too common. Members from right across the House will have heard other stories like these in their own constituencies.

• 11 Nov 2024 · Mental Health: Farming and Agricultural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely; we know that mental health issues have an impact on people across the community. It is not just the individual who is directly affected, but those around that person. The RABI survey found that women aged 24 to 35 had the worst mental health scores across the sample, so I ask the Minister to think about how policy can address that and how we can raise awareness of the mental health challenges facing all those in farming and rural communities. I stress that there are some wonderful organisations, locally and nationally, that work hard to support our rural and agricultural communities and to provide support for mental wellbeing. I mention again the RABI and the role it plays in supporting farmers, and others such as the Farming Community Network and the Yellow Wellies’ “Mind Your Head” project, which help farmers when they need it most. Those organisations, as good as they are, are not the long-term solution, nor can they find and prevent every tragic occurrence and consequence of suicide in the rural community. Any good doctor would say that prevention is better than cure. The cause of a significant amount of stress for farmers, particularly recently, has been Government policy.

• 11 Nov 2024 · Mental Health: Farming and Agricultural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate the Minister’s constructive comments, and some of the policies he mentioned that he put in place. As I noted, I want to raise the importance of the impact on young people in the farming industry, so will he meet me and Cheshire Young Farmers’ Clubs, so that young farmers can hear at first hand from the Minister and put questions to him on this issue?

• 11 Nov 2024 · Mental Health: Farming and Agricultural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate the hon. Member’s comments, and I am sorry to hear about the tragic instances in his constituency. We very much need to be collaborative to improve things for the farming community.

• 11 Nov 2024 · Mental Health: Farming and Agricultural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for sharing that. The impact of APR will be felt across the community. Unfortunately, in a community that is struggling with mental health, it is an extra blow. Later, I will offer some thoughts on how we might better prevent mental health problems, but I will briefly mention a few other reasons why mental health issues are disproportionately higher in rural areas. First, there is the issue of isolation, which is multifaceted. It can be attributed to literal isolation, because farmers live in sparsely populated areas far from the nearest village; digital isolation, as they are without broadband or mobile coverage; and physical isolation from a lack of transport links. That issue keenly felt in my constituency, where many rural areas have little or no public transport connections. A mixture of those forms of isolation means that people in rural areas, such as farmers, often suffer from loneliness. It is not easy for people to go to the local pub or café to talk to friends and neighbours when they live in the countryside. It is harder to get to those places, and harder to make time to socialise due to the demands of farming. There is also the issue of rural reticence. There has historically been a stigma surrounding mental health; sadly, although we have made good progress in breaking down barriers and encouraging people to talk, there remains a reticence in rural and agricultural communities to talk about problems or feelings. It is not because of hubris or arrogance. Rather, the “I’ll manage myself” culture comes from a desire not to burden neighbours and friends who are also in the community, and will no doubt be facing the same challenges. I am confident that we can do more as a society to break down this barrier and encourage farmers to talk honestly and openly with one another.

• 11 Nov 2024 · Mental Health: Farming and Agricultural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member, who is an excellent champion for farmers in her community, makes an important point on physical health.