Emma Hardy MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  I will not, only because I have just three minutes left. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) again for his support of the Water (Special Measures) Act and the commission, and for highlighting the impact that pollution has on wildlife and the importance of cleaning up our rivers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove), too, for her support for the Act. She is right to highlight the awful inheritance we received and the action we have taken. My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) talked about the Wave Project, which provides mental health support. I am really keen to hear about that project, and I commend everyone involved for their work. It sounds like a wonderful—[Hon. Members: “He’s not here; he can’t hear you!”] He will hear me by osmosis. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce) highlighted that cuts have consequences, and indeed they do. Slashing the Environment Agency’s budget by half certainly has had a consequence. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) again for her work and support on the Water (Special Measures) Act and for championing those cleaning up our water. Of course, I also love being by the seaside, which is why I have to say how delighted I am that our mayoral candidate for Hull and East Yorkshire is championing a plan to provide free bus services to coastal areas during the summer holidays so that people can enjoy the countryside—vote Labour. We have reset the water sector. We are stopping the sewage scandal and transforming the water industry from one of decline to one of opportunity. We are seizing the opportunity to restore national pride in our rivers, lakes and seas and to secure a reliable water future supply for all. We are delivering our plan for change to create a better future for our country. Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  Oh, there she is. Again, this is testing my eyesight—it is confusing me. I hope that the hon. Lady has seen and welcomed the changes we are introducing around bathing waters and the definition of a bather, and how that definition could also people involved in water sports. That is something she might be interested in.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is quite right: the Water (Special Measures) Act is a landmark piece of legislation, but it is just the start of what we want to achieve. It will give Ofwat new powers to ban unfair bonuses. It will introduce stricter penalties, including imprisonment. It will enable the regulator to impose automatic and severe fines for wrongdoing, and it will involve cost recovery and the mandatory reporting of emergency overflows. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, we do not just want to give you that; we are going to give you so much more—more and more. We are going to go even further with the Independent Water Commission, because, as we heard from hon. Members across the House, that is not the extent of the Government’s ambition. Sir Jon Cunliffe is currently undertaking the biggest review of the water sector since privatisation. He will be making recommendations to deliver long-term benefits, restore water bodies to good health, provide a reliable and efficient supply of water in a changing climate, and, ultimately, serve both customers and the environment. The independent commission will look to reset the water industry and tackle systemic issues to fundamentally transform the sector. The recommendations will form the basis of further legislation—I am already anticipating the amendments from the Liberal Democrats—to attract the long-term investment to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good. In addition to such measures, Ofwat has announced £104 billion of private sector investment in the water sector over the next five years to build and upgrade water infrastructure in every region of the country, cutting sewage spills, improving water quality and giving us a reliable future water supply. It will also create tens of thousands of jobs around the country, help us to build our 1.5 million homes, support major infrastructure projects and power new industries. This is regional economic growth in action—the cornerstone of our plan for change. I turn now to the contributions from my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley), who is a champion in her community and has raised with me her concerns around both flooding and water pollution, highlighted the importance of the “polluter pays” principle and how that money can be returned through to the Environment Agency. Of course, I share her love of SUDS. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) for her work on the Water (Special Measures) Act and for the kind and persistent way she has lobbied me about the River Wye—she always lobbies so gently, Madam Deputy Speaker, with a smile on her face every time she sees me. That is why I was so pleased that DEFRA and the Welsh Government were able to give £1 million for research to understand pollution and the other pressures and to develop a plan to tackle the issues in the Wye catchment. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), who is somewhere in the Chamber— [ Interruption. ] There he is! He is testing my eyesight this evening. The Minister for Nature, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), will be happy to visit his constituency to look at all the work he is doing up there to clean up in his area. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) is sadly not in her place—

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you so much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and can I say that you are doing an incredibly awesome job in the Chair? I would like to thank—if I can call him this—my hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for bringing forward this debate from the Liberal Democrats. I am really glad to have this opportunity to close this important debate. I pay tribute, if I may, to all environmental groups, all citizen scientists, and all those involved in campaigning on this important issue up and down the country. I would also like to pay tribute to and thank the people who work in the water industry; the people who have to go out and deal with sewage overflows, working on the frontline and sometimes facing appalling levels of abuse for doing the job they do. I welcome the engagement we have had from across the House on the Independent Water Commission. As we have heard, the sewage spilling into our rivers, lakes and seas is a national disgrace. It is the result of years of under-investment by the Conservatives. They left us with crumbling water infrastructure and a broken water system. Instead of fixing our water system, they let water companies use customers’ money to pay out unjustified bonuses to their polluting bosses and shareholders. We will never let that happen. This Labour Government are turning the tide on sewage once and for all. Those are not just words. In this debate, we set out exactly how we will do that. Within days of coming to office, we ringfenced money earmarked for investment in water infrastructure so it cannot be diverted for bonuses or dividends. Where the money is not spent, it will be returned to customers.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Lady is rather keen to hear from me and I am happy to offer to intervene. The water commission is looking at levels of debt. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), will know, because we had the conversation many times in Committee, that that is part of what the commission is looking at. I gently remind the right hon. Lady that, as much as I accept that she is super keen for us to have achieved everything she failed to do in nine months, she had 14 years to do it.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a real pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I wish you, and anybody celebrating, a very happy Easter—I hope that it is a peaceful and enjoyable day. I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for securing this debate and giving us space and time to discuss this important issue. I hope that I can use this debate as an opportunity to address some of the concerns being voiced around Thames Water and the water industry. Since I am feeling rather positive and getting ready for Easter, instead of “10 things I hate about”, I would rather come up with 10 things that might give us reason for hope and renewal in the water industry. To give 10 reasons for hope, since we have been elected we have: one, introduced the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 to ban bonuses; two, with the Water (Special Measures) Act, introduced criminal liability; three, introduced automatic penalties; four, set up the independent commission; five, changed the articles of association; six, ringfenced money for investment; seven, doubled the compensation for burst pipes, which has come up through the guaranteed standards scheme; eight, created customer panels for water companies; nine, passed bathing water reforms; 10, published storm overflow guidance just last week. And this new Labour Government have not even been in office for a year. Thinking of fairness and justice, I generally have an aversion to criticising people who cannot be here to defend themselves, so I want to reflect on the comment made about Ruth Kelly. She works for Water UK; she does not work for Thames Water, so characterising her as a defender of Thames Water is not entirely correct.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. They are trying to do a good job. I add that it is a good industry to work in; the people in it have long careers and, I might add, excellent trade union representation. I am not sure that I will have complete support from everyone in the room on that point—just when I was doing so well—but I want to echo that it is not those people’s responsibility. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who is no longer in his place, was right to say that customers and the environment should be at the heart of reforms. As I mentioned, we changed the articles of association to put customers on to the boards. My hon. Friend is always incredibly caring about his residents, so I wanted to mention to him and to all the other hon. Members that we are holding the water companies to account to end water poverty by 2030. We are just about to consult—we have to wait for purdah—on changing the rules around WaterSure to extend eligibility for it. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) enjoyed her three years in Yorkshire. It is a fine and wonderful part of the country, and she is always welcome to come back. She is an incredible champion for her community. I am sure that she will never need my assistance in standing up for that community, but I am always happy to give it if she does. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon North (Will Stone) highlighted the role that MPs can play. He showed what a good choice was made in the last election to send him here as a representative for his community. I thank him for his support for the Water (Special Measures) Act and for the further work that we are doing on regulators. The hon. Members for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) talked about the Teddington abstraction scheme. Without going into loads of detail, there will be a consultation, and they will be able to feed in the concerns of their residents and environmental concerns. But if either of the hon. Members feel that their concerns, or those of their residents, are not being listened to, I am happy to make arrangements for us to sit and have a longer conversation about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) mentioned a family of four struggling with their water bill. I again highlight WaterSure. We are looking to expand eligibility for it, but at the moment, if a family has three or more children under the age of 18 living at the property and they claim child benefit, they will be eligible for WaterSure, so I urge my hon. Friend to pass that information on to his constituents. I thank him for his support for the Water (Special Measures) Act, the commission and our desire to introduce change. Before turning to Thames Water, I want to emphasise that as a Government we recognise that the water sector is facing many challenges, and we have set out ambitious plans to tackle those challenges head-on, but it is important also to emphasise that resolving them will require long-term and transformative change. One thing mentioned here—I think by the loyal Opposition—is that there is no silver bullet or quick fix for some of the problems that we face. We recently took the Water (Special Measures) Act through Parliament; it was amended in the other place. It will drive meaningful improvements in the performance and culture of the water industry and act as a first step in enabling wider and transformative change across the water sector. The Act delivers on the Government’s manifesto commitments by blocking bonuses for executives who pollute our waterways, enabling the bringing of criminal charges against persistent lawbreakers, enabling automatic and severe fines for wrongdoing, and ensuring monitoring of every sewage outlet. In October we launched, in collaboration with the Welsh Government, an independent commission on the water sector regulatory system. This is the largest review of the water industry since privatisation. The commission will report in the middle of this year and make recommendations on how to tackle systemic issues in the water sector to help restore our rivers, lakes and seas to good health, meet the challenges of the future and contribute to economic growth. Those recommendations will form the basis of further legislation to attract long-term investment and clean up our waters for good. I now turn to Thames Water specifically before moving on to the sector as a whole. I will say as much as I am able to about Thames Water, bearing in mind that it is going through a confidential process. I completely understand what has been said. Let me say at the beginning that I am not here as the hon. Member for Thames Water, and I am not here to defend the actions of Thames Water. I want to reassure and, I hope, send a message to the general public that we are monitoring the situation and the company remains stable. In the event of special administration, the taps will still function and the sewage will still be taken—I want that message to be heard by the general public—so there is no need for alarm. The people working for the company will continue to be paid in the event of special administration. As a responsible Government, we are preparing for every eventuality. However, at the moment the company remains stable. I think it is incorrect to say that we are “resisting” special administration. That would be a total mischaracterisation of what special administration is and the process of entering the special administration regime. It is not that we are resisting anything. A special administration order is a well-established mechanism to ensure that the company continues to operate and that customers continue to receive their water and wastewater services, so customers need not be concerned about any disruption to their water supply or wastewater services because of the financial position of their water company. The provision of water and wastewater services will continue. Special administration is the ultimate enforcement tool in the regulatory toolkit, and as such, the bar is set high. The law is clear—this obviously links to insolvency legislation—and states that special administration can be initiated only if the company becomes insolvent, can no longer fulfil its statutory duties or seriously breaches an enforcement order. Only in that scenario does the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or Ofwat—crucially, with the consent of the Secretary of State—have the power to request the court to place a company in a special administration regime. If that situation arises, the court must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the water company in question is insolvent, can no longer seriously fulfil its primary statutory duties, or has seriously breached an enforcement order. It will then make a special administration order, appointing a special administrator. That is a hypothetical situation. It is not, I stress, the situation that we are talking about now, but let us say that somebody said, “We want to put this company into special administration”; the decision then would be made by the court, and the court would need to be satisfied that there is the evidence to put that company into special administration.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to, if the hon. Member wishes to retract his comment.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I want to stress that although that is the legal process for entering special administration, that does not mean for one second that we are satisfied with the performance of the company as a whole. But there is a wealth of difference between the court-sanctioned process of going into special administration and the Government taking action. There are many things on which we want to take action. In fact, the whole purpose of the commission is to look at the way in which companies are set up and how we got into this position in the first place. It might interest the Opposition that some of the rules and regulations around Ofwat were relaxed in 2014—under the coalition Government. It is not as though we are completely satisfied with everything, and that is why we are not doing SA. What I am saying is that SA is an ultimate enforcement tool; it is a serious step to take and it is sanctioned by the courts, but that does not mean that we are not doing anything else in between. We are taking a lot of other actions, but I wanted to address the specific point around why we are not pushing the company into special administration.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased by what I believe I have heard: that no reference was made to Ruth Kelly with regard to Thames Water; instead, the comment was solely about her representing Water UK. Further to my point about people who are not here and unable to defend themselves, as a trade unionist I want to talk about the people who work for water companies, including those who work for Thames Water and go out to fix the broken pipes, clean up sewage and deal with the sewage overspills. I have had reports from some unions that those people often face abuse for doing so. They are often on the frontline facing people angry with the company. I would like to say—and I hope we have unity on this point—that the people going out, cleaning up the mess and dealing with the difficulties are not responsible. They are not Thames Water; they are people who work for it. I thank them for the work that they do in incredibly difficult circumstances.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, the hon. Gentleman is incorrect. Actually, compromise amendments were reached on a few occasions, so I want to gently push back on what he says. Cross-party amendments in the other place, where the Bill began, were discussed and accepted, so it is factually incorrect to say that no amendments were accepted.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. Member as also saying that she is a defender of, or a spokesperson for, Thames Water. I am happy for him to retract his comment.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  With respect, I think that we have different interpretations of the truth. We are saying that the company can enter SA if it is insolvent. Thames Water is not at the point of insolvency. My message to the public and to people working in the company is that the company remains stable at the moment; however, as a responsible Government, we are preparing for every eventuality. I want to talk about broader commitments to financial stability and the independent commission. For me, this debate highlights how important it is to address the financial resilience of the water sector. We are talking specifically about Thames Water, but that does not mean that everything else is a bed of roses. Some historical decisions made by companies on debt levels have left them badly financially exposed. Those decisions often coincided with moves towards more complex ownership structures and the involvement of firms with shorter-term horizons. We recognise that the Government have an important role to play in setting a regulatory framework that encourages a stable water sector. In hindsight, many might question the 2014 changes to make Ofwat a lighter-touch regulator. The Independent Water Commission is exploring how the Government could provide the regulatory structure that most people in the Chamber recognise that we need. The call for evidence is currently live, seeking views from stakeholders on improvements that could be made to economic regulation across a number of areas. As always, we welcome contributions from everybody across the House. The call for evidence closes on 23 April, and I encourage all interested parties to respond to the commission’s questions on these topics via DEFRA’s online consultation tool, Citizen Space. I conclude by reiterating that both the Government and Ofwat are carefully monitoring the situation with Thames Water.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  Water is devolved, and I completely respect the autonomy of the Scottish Parliament to make those decisions. The Government have been clear that we are not looking at nationalisation, simply because of the cost, the time it would take and the legal complications. My focus is quite simply on what I can do to improve the situation that we currently face. There is a lot of consensus around looking at regulation and how effective, or not, it is at the moment, and what can be changed. That is where I have put all my focus. Nationalisation was ruled out of the Independent Water Commission; however, all other forms of ownership are allowed within the terms of reference. It is for the companies to resolve their financial resilience issues within the context of their licence and broader statutory obligations. However, I must be clear: the Government are prepared for all scenarios across our regulated industries, as any responsible Government would be. This new Government are committed to turning around the water sector—I refer back to my 10 reasons for hope before Easter—which will be achieved through practical measures to clean up illegal sewage dumping and attracting major private sector investment to upgrade infrastructure while prioritising the interests, as we have mentioned, of customers and our beautiful environment.

• 31 Mar 2025 · Draft Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  As I said, there is an opportunity of $182 billion to $356 billion that we can perhaps not exploit—that is maybe the wrong word—but utilise, or take advantage of.

• 31 Mar 2025 · Draft Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the most loyal Opposition for their support with this SI, and I thank all hon. Members who have spoken. It is incredibly important that we make clear the distinction between genetic modification and what we are talking about here, and that we note how different the two things are. I welcome the Opposition’s support with that clarification. I will take a moment to reflect on the importance of implementing this legislation. Without it, the potential of precision breeding cannot be realised. The existing legislation carries a significant burden, limiting which companies can bring products to market and which crop species’ traits we can benefit from. The overwhelming scientific advice is that it is not proportionate to apply existing legislation to plants produced by modern biotechnology when those plants could have resulted—this is the key point that the hon. Member for Epping Forest made—from traditional breeding processes. These regulations provide a science-based approach and are proportionate. I will cover some of the points that have been raised. On animals and birds, I recognise the professional view and real feelings of the hon. Member for Epping Forest, and he is keen to know more about the Government’s plans for implementing the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 for animals. While we are continuing the research that supports policy development of the animal welfare declaration, no decision has yet been taken on introducing legislation to implement the 2023 Act in relation to precision-bred animals. I have no further information about that, because only plants are in scope of this SI.

• 31 Mar 2025 · Draft Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Ms Hobhouse. The draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 25 February, implement the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023. For precision-bred plants in England, they provide the practical and technical details to implement a new, science-based and proportionate regulatory system for precision-bred plants as set out in the Act. The territorial application of the draft regulations is England only, and they cover the environmental release and marketing of precision-bred plants, as well as their use in food and feed in England. That includes a process administered by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to confirm that plants are precision-bred and not genetically modified before they can be marketed. Also established is a food and feed marketing authorisation process administered by the Food Standards Agency, which allows products to be placed safely on the market. The regulations also outline details for public registers and enforcement. Today, by passing this secondary legislation, we have the opportunity to transform and modernise our food system to make it fit for the future. The 21st-century agricultural system faces significant challenges. It must provide enough food to meet the growing demand while becoming more sustainable. It must also survive the threat to productivity posed by climate change. Food security is national security. To help us achieve that, we need innovation in fundamental sectors such as plant breeding. Precision breeding would be transformative for the sector, enabling innovative products to be commercialised in years instead of decades—and we do not have decades. Through precision breeding, crops can be developed that are more resilient to climate change, resistant to pests and diseases and beneficial to the environment. In turn, that will increase food production, reduce the need for pesticides and fertilisers, lower emissions and reduce costs for farmers. However, to capture those benefits, we need a regulatory framework with a sound science base that encourages innovation. The scientific consensus across key advisory committees and institutes is that precision-bred organisms pose no greater risk to human health or the environment than traditionally bred organisms. The existing legislation carries a significant burden, adding a stifling 74% to the cost of marketing for businesses. That deters investment and limits the companies that can bring products to market and the traits that we can benefit from. Countries that have kept pace with the science and introduced regulatory reform have seen significant investment. The Americas have attracted over 80% of venture capital investment in the sector, while only 5% comes to Europe. It is paramount that we act now to change that. Through these regulations, we are establishing an approach that is more proportionate to the level of risk. Based on the scientific advice, we are treating precision-bred organisms more like their traditionally bred counterparts. By capitalising on the UK’s existing strengths and reputation for scientific excellence, we have the potential to be a leader in this growing sector internationally. The new regulatory framework will place us at the forefront across Europe and allow us to attract innovators to start and grow their businesses here. We have worked with industry from the outset. Industry are clear on the opportunities that precision breeding presents and confident in the policy direction we are taking. Exciting research is already taking place in anticipation of the new regulatory framework, with the potential for some products to be on the market in the next few years. Tropic, an SME based in Norwich, has developed a non-browning banana that can reduce food waste and improve farm gate revenues by as much as 50%. Another product close to market is Simplot’s precision-bred strawberry, which would make one of Britain’s favourite fruits available to purchase beyond the summer months—lovely. We recognise that concerns have been raised in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report, most notably around traceability and labelling, the impact on the organic sector, the UK internal market and trade with the EU. We agree that those issues are important and our work to understand and mitigate implications is ongoing. For example, we are continuing our engagement with devolved Governments and with the relevant sectors, such as the organic industry. We are also exploring ways to further improve transparency and the provision of information about precision-bred plant varieties. We believe that we have struck the right balance, with an enabling regulatory framework that is proportionate and evidence-based while providing measures for transparency and regulatory oversight. This Government are pro-science and pro-innovation, and we are confident that the provisions in this secondary legislation will translate the benefits of precision breeding into reality.

• 31 Mar 2025 · Draft Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I will take that point back to the Farming Minister. As for the assurance on risk, the advice is consistent across scientific sources and is supported by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment and the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, as well as institutions such as the Royal Society and the European Food Safety Authority. These principles also underpin regulatory approaches adopted abroad, where England is now aligned with countries such as Canada, Japan and Argentina. I reassure hon. Members that the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes advised that there is no evidence that precision-bred organisms are intrinsically more hazardous than traditionally bred organisms. I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest: we are not talking about the same things. Devolved Governments were also mentioned. We recognise that there are concerns about divergence in the UK, and that is why we continue to engage regularly with the devolved Governments. The Farming Minister recently sent letters to his counterparts in the devolved Governments to invite them to discuss these matters further. We recognise the importance of working closely with the devolved nations on these issues and we look forward to those meetings. On the EU position, which the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire mentioned, although the final legislation has not yet been agreed among EU legislators, the European Commission has published a proposal for the regulation of plants by new genomic techniques. We are monitoring the EU’s position closely and note the recent progress made by the European Council on the draft NGT proposal. The proposal is similar in aim to the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, but it will take some time before new legislation is implemented in the EU. However, we do not have time to wait.

• 31 Mar 2025 · Draft Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to clarify that I was talking about animals and birds. I can attempt to provide further information, but without wanting to appear deliberately vague, no decision has been taken. However, if and when one is, I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman knows.

• 31 Mar 2025 · Draft Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I will try to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question and then he is welcome to intervene. A report by the Breakthrough Institute and Alliance for Science estimates that the EU’s current regulations on gene editing could result in an annual economic opportunity cost of $182 billion to $356 billion for the EU. That is why we want to act now to place English scientists and breeders at the forefront across Europe to make the most of opportunities presented by precision-breeding technologies.

• 31 Mar 2025 · Draft Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, which was thoughtful, as always, and demonstrated our care for other countries around the world. We have talked about resistance to pests and changes owing to climate change, and this is generally a good and innovative technology that can be used to benefit many people. As I said, although the EU seems to be moving in this area, we are diverging and we do not have time to wait.

• 31 Mar 2025 · Draft Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman—we can capitalise on the opportunity, because we will be the first country that takes this through. As I have noted, the EU position seems to be moving, but we recognise that that will take some time, whereas I hope we will agree to this SI today. On that note, I thank everybody for their contributions and the Opposition for their support. Question put and agreed to.

• 31 Mar 2025 · Draft Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  Only because it is the hon. Gentleman.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) for securing this debate and giving these important issues the parliamentary attention that they deserve, and for meeting me in January, when he highlighted his concerns about the water industry and helpfully set out what he is trying to achieve with the Bill. For several years he has been a fearless environmental campaigner on this and many other issues. I thank all campaigners and the public for their interest in the water industry. They are right to hold the Government’s feet to the fire and to expect so much better than they have had over the past 14 years. I make the promise to all of them that my duty, my job and what I serve every day in this place to do is to improve and clean up our rivers, lakes and seas and deliver a fair water system to everybody. Although there might be differences of opinion in how we get there, the motivation behind the actions that I take cannot be questioned. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the Bill. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this important and wide-ranging debate and all hon. Members who have attended—I am not mentioning the ones who did not. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), the Chair of the Treasury Committee, made a really important contribution. She talked about the big nasties, those things that we knew when we came into Government would cost so much money, and the competition that water would potentially face from roads, rail, schools and so much more that needs repairing. She is right to point out that when we talk about shareholders, sometimes in the public imagination we imagine a rich businessman holding all the shares. Quite often, however, they are pension funds that would require compensation if we nationalised. If compensation was not provided, it would have an impact on people’s pensions and that would have a real-world impact.