Neil Hudson MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 19 Dec 2024 · Budget: Family Farms · Hansard source

  More

  The autumn Budget put family farms in jeopardy. Those farms also need biosecurity to protect their futures. With avian influenza spreading, bluetongue still with us and African swine fever at our doorstep in Europe, biosecurity is national security. Central to that is the Animal and Plant Health Agency, whose headquarters in Weybridge needs a £2.8 billion redevelopment to protect farming and animal, plant and public health. The Conservative Government rightly started that work with £1.2 billion committed in 2020. I note that Labour has committed £200 million to support that transformation, but that will not touch the sides. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government will complete the project in full, as the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs called for in opposition, and commit the remaining £1.4 billion to protect our nation’s biosecurity and prevent an animal disease outbreak catastrophe?

• 18 Dec 2024 · British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty · Hansard source

  More

  Yet again, this new Labour Government rushed into an ill-judged and regrettable policy decision: to cede the British Indian Ocean Territory to Mauritius, against expert advice and with no regard to the wishes of Chagossians in this country and elsewhere. It is like the Government’s awful policies on scrapping the winter fuel payment for pensioners, the heartless family farms tax, and their jobs tax. Will the Government show some leadership, admit that they have got this wrong, scrap the deal and keep this vital territory under British control, to protect UK interests, the marine environment and ultimately global security in an increasingly unstable and dangerous world?

• 18 Dec 2024 · Winter Preparedness · Hansard source

  More

  As we come into the height of winter, will the Minister join me in thanking all the amazing people on the frontline who are diagnosing, treating and caring for people right across the country? With multiple infectious disease challenges, the impact of cold and extreme weather, and the risk of falls and accidents, will the Government please now rethink their policies on winter fuel cuts and national insurance rises, which will exacerbate the situation and compromise the delivery of primary healthcare, social care and hospice care?

• 16 Dec 2024 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to wind up for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition in what has been a comprehensive debate tonight. I want to thank all Members, who have made so many interesting points across the House about many different aspects of policy. The hon. Members for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) and for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) talked about water supply issues and when companies fail to deliver on their duties. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) talked about the fantastic Wave Project helping young people with their mental health in her constituency. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) raved about the magnificent Severn, and the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) waxed lyrical about her local birdlife. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) talked about the importance of monitoring and of a holistic approach to water management, as was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths). My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) talked about the importance of fit-for-purpose water infrastructure for new developments. My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) eloquently articulated the issues with our Victorian sewage network and about the importance of the water restoration fund. My hon. Friends the Members for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) and for Windsor (Jack Rankin) are proud advocates for standing up for water quality for their constituents. As for those in the party sitting to my left, the Lib Dems seem to airbrush themselves out of Government history and seem to forget that they were in coalition Government for some five years. May I gently remind the Liberal Democrats that they actually had a Water Minister in that coalition Government who did absolutely nothing on this issue when they were in power? They pivot and posture as the party of protest, jumping on their stand-up paddleboard bandwagon, but far from being concerned about water quality and safety, they appear more than happy to strap on their wetsuits and dive headfirst under the water. The amendments to the Environment Bill in the last Parliament that Labour and the Liberal Democrats voted for would actually have cost in excess of £300 billion to rebuild the entire Victorian sewage and drainage systems. That was completely unaffordable, and it would have put up taxpayers’ water bills by hundreds of pounds each year. They did not tell the public that when they cast their smears on Conservative MPs and peers who voted for sensible, costed plans to realistically address the sewage situation, but they never let the truth get in the way of stand-up paddleboard bandwagons. Water quality and how sewage is dealt with are of vital importance to all our constituents right across the House, and we on this side—the Conservatives—are proud that we were the party that began the process of addressing this while in government. What we can now see with this new Labour Government is an attempt to copy and paste many of our Conservative achievements and plans, rebadging them as their own. It is an interesting approach and a recurrent theme. They opposed and blocked all of our plans when in opposition, and now they are scrabbling around and trying to say that they agreed with our plans all along. In fact, just look what the Government have been saying this week about the Conservative-delivered comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, which Labour now thinks is the best thing since sliced bread, having distanced themselves from it when they were in opposition. That is the theme of this new Government. The Labour manifesto promised to put failing water companies under special measures to clean up water and clean up our rivers that have been polluted by illegal sewage dumping. Now it is Labour Members’ turn in government to deliver on these promises to ensure that these are not more broken promises, such as their heartless family farm tax, which they promised they would not do and then cruelly went on to do, or their promise not to raise national insurance. I note that we would not be talking about this issue today, or we would be talking about a worse situation, had it not been for the previous Conservative Government being the first to investigate the problem, grasp the nettle and meet the ambitious pledge to ensure that 100% of storm overflows are monitored, so that we could get accurate data on what is being put into our waterways. Without that, we would need to do far more groundwork to start determining what we need to do. We must remember that the last time Labour was in charge of DEFRA in England, when it left office in 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were being monitored, compared with 100% when the Conservatives left office. It was left for us to sort and improve monitoring, so that we can have an accurate view of what is happening—an evidence base for policy making, rather than poking around in the dark under Labour. I really hope that Labour does not break its promises to improve water quality in England, because the story in Labour-run Wales is sub-optimal to say the least. In 2022, the average number of spills from storm overflows was two thirds higher in Labour-run Wales than in England—not exactly the best blueprint for government that Labour at Westminster said it would emulate. Some 92% of English bathing waters meet water quality standards, but that still needs to be higher and we look forward to the new Government detailing their plans to achieve better results. We have heard from many Members about Thames Water, which is a notable, critical issue at this moment, but so far Labour has failed to come up with a clear plan for how it will address that and protect both the bill payer and the broader taxpayer. The Labour Government are promising to review the water system, with more reviews and more reboots, but what they should be doing is rolling their sleeves up and continuing the progress that the Conservatives started. That progress includes our landmark Environment Act 2021, delivering our plan for cutting plastic pollution and holding water companies to account; our work on measuring storm overflows; our ambitious “Plan for Water”; and strong action on water companies that were illegally dumping sewage into our waters—we have heard a lot about that tonight. That has included quadrupling water company inspections, meaning a pathway to 4,000 inspections a year by April 2025, and 10,000 a year from April 2026. That was part of our plan to crack down on poor-performing water companies. We banned bonuses for the bosses of water companies that have committed criminal breaches, so that polluting our waters is not rewarded—a Conservative measure that this Bill copies. We also fast-tracked £180 million of investment from water companies to prevent more than 8,000 sewage spills this year, and stepped up requirements on water companies to increase investment in water infrastructure, with a commitment upwards of £60 billion over the next 25 years. We put pressure on those companies. We also prosecuted water companies that illegally pollute our rivers, making it clear that polluters must pay for damage to our natural environment. We tried to give more teeth to the regulator, Ofwat, and to the enforcer, the Environment Agency. Let me touch briefly on the Bill’s passage in the other place. Our colleagues there tabled amendments to the Bill that we are happy were accepted, but we were disappointed that amendment 51, tabled by Lord Roborough, did not pass. It would have stopped customers across the country having their bills increased in the event of a water company being put into special measures. Under the current Bill, if a company in one part of the country is placed in special measures and costs are incurred, consumers in the rest of the country may still be liable to pay for it, despite not using the company that has been placed in special measures. The amendment would have provided a significant improvement to the Bill, and in Committee we will be asking Labour to think carefully about amendments to improve the legislation. It was disappointing that when the Labour Minister in the other place was asked about amendment 51, she failed to commit to protecting consumers from higher bills if a water company goes under. Our Conservative colleagues in the other place also worked hard to bolster important nature-based solutions, and we are glad that the Government listened to them. We will look to strengthen that, along with the important role of the Water Restoration Fund. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition will support this Bill on Second Reading, and we will look to improve it in Committee, as our Conservative colleagues did in the other place. We will scrutinise the Bill as it goes through the rest of the legislative process, to ensure that it can be the best for all our constituents right across the House. This Bill must function in the way that the British public expect, to continue the work to clean up our British waters. The strong action that began under the Conservatives to improve our waters needs to be upheld by this new Labour Government.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Draft Ivory Act 2018 (Meaning of “Ivory” and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for giving way again and for her clarifications about walrus. Will she undertake to write to me? The Government must keep a watching brief if there is a loophole that could be exploited in the seal products legislation and, if need be, come back to the House and amend this statutory instrument so that it includes the ivory from those animals. They must keep a watching brief on what comes in and out of the country, because I worry that some unscrupulous people may try to exploit the unintended consequences of this instrument. I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that Ministers, in dialogue with the Faroe Islands, raised whaling at a high level. I did ask a larger question: in wider discussions, including fisheries negotiations with the Faroe Islands or Norway, and trade negotiations with countries such as Japan, will the UK play a world leadership role by putting pressure on those countries to stop the horrific practice of whaling? Will the Minister give an undertaking that her Department, and other Departments such as the Department for Business and Trade and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, will do that?

• 11 Dec 2024 · Draft Ivory Act 2018 (Meaning of “Ivory” and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister undertake that the Government will keep a watching brief on walrus and, if need be, put them back into this statutory instrument if loopholes are created?

• 11 Dec 2024 · Draft Ivory Act 2018 (Meaning of “Ivory” and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  My question was not focused on the pathway that the Minister is talking about in terms of musical instruments: I was actually referring to natural history collections. I assume her answer is relevant to those as well, but she has answered about musical instruments when I was focusing on natural history collections.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Draft Ivory Act 2018 (Meaning of “Ivory” and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great privilege to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. First, I thank the Minister for bringing these important regulations to the Committee. I am very happy to say that His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition are very supportive of this instrument. Animal welfare and protecting and conserving precious animals and wildlife across our planet is something that unites us in humanity. We Conservatives are extremely proud of the Ivory Act 2018, which this SI builds on; we introduced it, and it received widespread support across both Houses. This measure builds on the strong Conservative record on animal welfare. In the last Parliament, we introduced the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, creating the vital Animal Sentience Committee, which evaluates new legislation with due regard to animal welfare, and the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, which introduced tougher sentences for animal cruelty. In addition, I was delighted to support the Bill dealing with puppy smuggling—the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill—two weeks ago. That Bill started under the Conservatives, and I am pleased to see it carried forward by the new Government. The SI before us was introduced by the Conservatives earlier this year, and I am pleased that the new Government have picked up the Conservative baton on this. Expanding the Ivory Act to four further species to try to stamp out the horrific trade in tusks and teeth is something that we need to unite behind. As a veterinary surgeon and scientist, I am in absolute awe of animals such as the elephant and the hippopotamus and marine mammals such as orcas, narwhals and sperm whales. They are incredibly intelligent and beautiful animals, with complex familial, behavioural and social interactions. They categorically must be protected; any hunting or killing of those animals is horrific and barbaric. It is therefore right that this SI expands the scope of ivory covered under the Ivory Act to encompass those other precious and majestic animals and to give them the same protections so that their ivory will not be traded. Extending the Ivory Act will ensure that we in the UK are world leaders in prohibiting this trade, and will encourage conservation of these animals. I am pleased that the UK can set a global example and that we will play no part in facilitating the modern ivory trade. Although we support the instrument, I have a couple of clarification questions for the Minister, which I hope she can help us with. The first is on the impact that the measure might have on museum collections, such as natural history collections. Can the Minister give assurances that collections will still be able to hold and, if need be, move pieces that are potentially hundreds of years old? What other countries have followed the same approach as us, and what has happened to their museum collections? What plans do the Labour Government have to use our global soft power to help countries combat poaching, the ivory trade and the trade in hunted animals? What steps will they take to support and collaborate with allies internationally to stop poaching? The Minister mentioned the walrus, which was included in the original consultation but taken out of the SI because it is covered in separate seal products legislation. However, will the Government keep a watching brief to make sure that the seal products legislation does cover the ivory from walruses as well, and come back and add them to this SI if that legislation is not working? We would hate to have a majestic creature like the walrus slip through a loophole, so I hope the Government will keep the issue under review. On an allied theme—I have pressed the Government on this before, not least in a major debate last week in Westminster Hall—I hope the Minister can confirm that the Government will uphold the previous Conservative Government’s position and use every opportunity to be a global leader, putting put pressure on countries that hunt these precious animals and advocating for the end of cetacean hunts in the Faroe Islands. Also, with whaling still tragically and horrifically practised in various countries, including Norway and Japan, will the Minister outline how the Government are approaching countries that still conduct whaling and what steps the UK is taking in international discussions and negotiations to help end this horrific practice? There is no humane way to kill a whale, and this horrific practice must stop. Can the Minister reassure the Committee that the new Labour Government will continue to have the UK play its part on the world stage to end whaling once and for all? The Opposition are happy to support this statutory instrument to ensure that we can play our part in protecting these wonderful sentient creatures. By extending legislation to protect four further species, we send out a strong message from the United Kingdom that any trade in ivory is completely horrific and unacceptable.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Draft Ivory Act 2018 (Meaning of @0082Ivory@0083 and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for giving way again and for her clarifications about walrus. Will she undertake to write to me? The Government must keep a watching brief if there is a loophole that could be exploited in the seal products legislation and, if need be, come back to the House and amend this statutory instrument so that it includes the ivory from those animals. They must keep a watching brief on what comes in and out of the country, because I worry that some unscrupulous people may try to exploit the unintended consequences of this instrument. I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that Ministers, in dialogue with the Faroe Islands, raised whaling at a high level. I did ask a larger question: in wider discussions, including fisheries negotiations with the Faroe Islands or Norway, and trade negotiations with countries such as Japan, will the UK play a world leadership role by putting pressure on those countries to stop the horrific practice of whaling? Will the Minister give an undertaking that her Department, and other Departments such as the Department for Business and Trade and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, will do that?

• 11 Dec 2024 · Draft Ivory Act 2018 (Meaning of @0082Ivory@0083 and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister undertake that the Government will keep a watching brief on walrus and, if need be, put them back into this statutory instrument if loopholes are created?

• 11 Dec 2024 · Draft Ivory Act 2018 (Meaning of @0082Ivory@0083 and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  My question was not focused on the pathway that the Minister is talking about in terms of musical instruments: I was actually referring to natural history collections. I assume her answer is relevant to those as well, but she has answered about musical instruments when I was focusing on natural history collections.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Draft Ivory Act 2018 (Meaning of @0082Ivory@0083 and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great privilege to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. First, I thank the Minister for bringing these important regulations to the Committee. I am very happy to say that His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition are very supportive of this instrument. Animal welfare and protecting and conserving precious animals and wildlife across our planet is something that unites us in humanity. We Conservatives are extremely proud of the Ivory Act 2018, which this SI builds on; we introduced it, and it received widespread support across both Houses. This measure builds on the strong Conservative record on animal welfare. In the last Parliament, we introduced the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, creating the vital Animal Sentience Committee, which evaluates new legislation with due regard to animal welfare, and the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, which introduced tougher sentences for animal cruelty. In addition, I was delighted to support the Bill dealing with puppy smuggling—the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill—two weeks ago. That Bill started under the Conservatives, and I am pleased to see it carried forward by the new Government. The SI before us was introduced by the Conservatives earlier this year, and I am pleased that the new Government have picked up the Conservative baton on this. Expanding the Ivory Act to four further species to try to stamp out the horrific trade in tusks and teeth is something that we need to unite behind. As a veterinary surgeon and scientist, I am in absolute awe of animals such as the elephant and the hippopotamus and marine mammals such as orcas, narwhals and sperm whales. They are incredibly intelligent and beautiful animals, with complex familial, behavioural and social interactions. They categorically must be protected; any hunting or killing of those animals is horrific and barbaric. It is therefore right that this SI expands the scope of ivory covered under the Ivory Act to encompass those other precious and majestic animals and to give them the same protections so that their ivory will not be traded. Extending the Ivory Act will ensure that we in the UK are world leaders in prohibiting this trade, and will encourage conservation of these animals. I am pleased that the UK can set a global example and that we will play no part in facilitating the modern ivory trade. Although we support the instrument, I have a couple of clarification questions for the Minister, which I hope she can help us with. The first is on the impact that the measure might have on museum collections, such as natural history collections. Can the Minister give assurances that collections will still be able to hold and, if need be, move pieces that are potentially hundreds of years old? What other countries have followed the same approach as us, and what has happened to their museum collections? What plans do the Labour Government have to use our global soft power to help countries combat poaching, the ivory trade and the trade in hunted animals? What steps will they take to support and collaborate with allies internationally to stop poaching? The Minister mentioned the walrus, which was included in the original consultation but taken out of the SI because it is covered in separate seal products legislation. However, will the Government keep a watching brief to make sure that the seal products legislation does cover the ivory from walruses as well, and come back and add them to this SI if that legislation is not working? We would hate to have a majestic creature like the walrus slip through a loophole, so I hope the Government will keep the issue under review. On an allied theme—I have pressed the Government on this before, not least in a major debate last week in Westminster Hall—I hope the Minister can confirm that the Government will uphold the previous Conservative Government’s position and use every opportunity to be a global leader, putting put pressure on countries that hunt these precious animals and advocating for the end of cetacean hunts in the Faroe Islands. Also, with whaling still tragically and horrifically practised in various countries, including Norway and Japan, will the Minister outline how the Government are approaching countries that still conduct whaling and what steps the UK is taking in international discussions and negotiations to help end this horrific practice? There is no humane way to kill a whale, and this horrific practice must stop. Can the Minister reassure the Committee that the new Labour Government will continue to have the UK play its part on the world stage to end whaling once and for all? The Opposition are happy to support this statutory instrument to ensure that we can play our part in protecting these wonderful sentient creatures. By extending legislation to protect four further species, we send out a strong message from the United Kingdom that any trade in ivory is completely horrific and unacceptable.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Storm Darragh · Hansard source

  More

  I applaud the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) for asking this urgent question. He asked some very detailed questions about communication and connectivity that are vital for rural areas. Can the Minister commit to writing to him and to putting that letter in the Library? There is important information that needs to be put on the public record. Storm Darragh has had and continues to have terrible impacts across the UK. Our thoughts are very much with the loved ones of those who tragically lost their lives in recent days, and with the people whose homes and businesses have been devastated and those who continue to feel the effects of the storm. We must not forget that for at-risk communities, the mental health consequences can remain long after the storms and floods have abated and the blue lights have left. The Opposition pay tribute to the emergency services, the Environment Agency, local authorities and volunteer groups for their efforts to help people in these challenging and dangerous circumstances. In the coming hours and days, the Government need to focus on quickly reconnecting those without power and giving help to those who have been driven out of their homes, on the repair and reopening of buildings and schools and on the process for insurance claims so that residents can return home as soon as possible. What conversations are being had across Government to ensure that all that happens? What discussions did the Minister have with ministerial colleagues across Government and with the Environment Agency and the Met Office before the latest storm hit? The Government’s flood resilience taskforce was set up to improve flood preparedness. It has met once, and its next meeting is next year. Should it not be stood up more frequently and meet more regularly? The previous Conservative Government committed a record £5.2 billion from 2019 to 2027 to provide significantly improved flood defences across the country. Will the new Labour Government continue that investment? The farm recovery fund, initiated by the previous Conservative Government to support farmers, is vital. Will this Government provide new money now, after recent storms like Bert and Darragh? Finally, can the Government confirm their ongoing commitment to the communities hit by these increasingly common extreme weather events?

• 4 Dec 2024 · Biosecurity · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain, and to have the opportunity to contribute to this vital debate on biosecurity. I sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) on bringing the topic to the Chamber. Of the B-words that I have mentioned in this place over the last five years, biosecurity is right at the top. It is something that I am absolutely passionate about. I declare a strong professional and personal interest in the topic as a veterinary surgeon. There have been great speeches today on this important topic. The hon. Member for South Norfolk touched on the important issues of blue tongue, avian influenza, African swine fever, and the vital importance of the Animal and Plant Health Agency. He also touched on virus yellows and the significance of the topic for animal, plant and tree health across the United Kingdom. It is so important, so I thank the hon. Member again for introducing this debate. I am gutted that I did not get a chance to intervene on my friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). He talked about the importance of biosecurity and joined-up thinking right across our precious United Kingdom. He made a powerful intervention on the impact of bovine TB on farmers, speaking of how distressing and devastating it is when there is a positive reactor. I am going to touch on the mental-health impacts of biosecurity breakdowns. The hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), who is the chair of the UK food security APPG, again talked about the importance of the Animal and Plant Health Agency, and the people within that great institution working on the frontline to keep the United Kingdom safe. He stressed the importance of more support for the APHA, which I will touch on firmly and robustly with the Minister in due course. The hon. Member highlighted, as Members across the Chamber have done, the distressing and alarming situation of illegal meat imports coming into the country and the risks that African swine fever and foot and mouth disease may bring to our agricultural sectors. The hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) has personal experience of being on the frontline in his constituency. He spoke of the pivotal risks to both the poultry and pig sectors if those diseases come in. Some of the diseases, such as avian influenza, are here, as we have heard, but heaven forbid we get African swine fever. It would be devastating and catastrophic for this country. I thank the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for championing the veterinary sector. She cited the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, on which I served during the last Parliament. I chaired the emergency session on veterinary medicine when we heard powerful evidence from the chief veterinary officer, Christine Middlemiss. I take the opportunity—shamelessly—to give a big shout- out to people like Christine Middlemiss, as well as the chief vets right across our precious United Kingdom. The joined-up thinking of those veterinary experts working together to keep our nation safe is important, and we must champion and support them. I want to state firmly that biosecurity is national security. What we are here to discuss today is not a niche concern but something that is vital for human public health, food security, protecting our precious environment, and upholding animal health and welfare. The priority for the Government must be to shore up the nation’s biosecurity or risk the grim consequences of an animal disease outbreak, which could ravage wild and kept animal or bird populations, and doing untold damage to our economy and international trade standing. My journey to Parliament, as the first veterinary surgeon elected to the House of Commons since 1884, started in 2001, when I spent a period as a veterinary inspector on the frontline of the foot and mouth outbreak. I saw sights then that I never want to see again in my lifetime. The mass culls that devastated our rural communities showed the horrific reality of what can happen when Government gets biosecurity policy wrong. I gently but robustly say to the Minister that that remains an ever-present warning to Ministers of any political party. We must never forget, we must be vigilant and we must stand prepared. In 2001, previously bustling farms and fields were left empty, and even the hardiest of stoic farmers could not contain their grief. One memory I cannot shake off came after we worked through the night, with logistical support from the Army, to cull an entire herd of cattle, including the calves. In the morning, the farmer and his wife invited my veterinary colleague and me into their home for breakfast. He said to me, “Do you know, Neil, this is the first time of a morning that the only thing I can hear on my farm is complete silence.” Beyond the personal tragedies and the 6 million animals culled, the outbreak was estimated to have directly cost the public sector more than £5 billion and the private sector £8.7 billion in today’s prices when adjusted for inflation. Tragically, we saw lives, livelihoods and community mental health impacted. Fast-forward 20 years, and the UK now faces a significant threat from diseases, as we have heard today, such as bluetongue virus, avian influenza and—heaven forbid, if it crosses from the continent—African swine fever. As we have heard today, we still have the chronic presence of bovine tuberculosis. This year, we have seen cases of bluetongue across the UK, stretching from Cornwall to North Yorkshire, and Anglesey to East Anglia. In recent weeks, we have seen new outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza strains, including in Cornwall and Yorkshire. We also have the ever-present threat of African swine fever, which is advancing across Europe and now present in many countries, including Germany, Italy and Poland, to name just a few of the countries that are facing that virus. As we have heard, we have seen alarming levels of illegal meat imports being detected. During the 2022-23 avian influenza outbreak, 5.4 million birds died or were culled, and were then disposed of for disease-control purposes. Distressingly, huge numbers of wild birds also died. That is worrying not purely for birdlife but for other species, including humans. Avian influenza has been reported in the US in dairy cattle, and in South America in marine mammals. We all know the dangers of diseases that cross the species barriers, including zoonotic diseases, which move from animals to people. I return to the subject of bluetongue, which is spread by midges. Between November 2023 and May 2024, there were 126 identified cases of bluetongue virus serotype 3—BTV 3—in England. As of 25 November this year, 168 cases have been identified. The Minister has previously confirmed that bluetongue is “challenging to control without vaccination”, so will he assure the House that the Government are increasing work on vaccine manufacturing and procurement, for ultimate delivery and roll-out? The European Commission has published figures detailing cases of African swine fever in more than 20 nations across the continent this calendar year. Although we remain incredibly fortunate to have avoided cases in the UK, we must remain vigilant; otherwise, there is a risk that that highly infectious disease will cause catastrophe for our pig sector. The need for vigilance was underlined by a recent freedom of information request by the BBC, which showed that Border Force seized 70,000 kg of illegal, and therefore unregulated, meat in the 2023-24 financial year, up from 35,000 kg the year before. The Minister has updated us about the border target operating model. Will he update us on its capacity to keep us safe from diseases such as African swine fever and foot and mouth disease? We know that checks will be starting at Sevington, 22 miles inland from Dover. Will the Minister reassure us that we will still be able to carry out random spot checks within the port of Dover itself? It is important that the unscrupulous and immoral people who are trying to smuggle in foodstuffs that could potentially devastate our farming and food sectors know they can be targeted with checks. Live animal imports to this country can also pose a risk to animal and human health. There have been reports of Brucella canis, a disease in dogs that we have not heard about today, which sadly has limited treatment options and which in many cases ends up with the dog being euthanised. There were no cases in 2019 but 187 in 2023. It is a zoonotic disease, which means that it can transfer from animals to people, and there have been reports of dog-to-human transmission in the UK. It is therefore vital that the Government look at pre-import health testing of animals such as dogs coming in from countries in which diseases such as Brucella canis are endemic. On Friday, I was on the Front Bench supporting the puppy-smuggling Bill—the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill—which is now going into Committee. I urge the Government to look closely at the possibility of introducing pre-import checks to keep animals that are coming in safe, and to protect human and animal health in this country. I hope the dangers of the infectious agents that I and others have talked about today are taken seriously. We cannot afford to be complacent about the risks that threaten not just animal but human health, as well as our economy, our trading links and standards, and the wider agricultural sector. To put it simply, if a major outbreak were to occur and we were not fully prepared to deal with it, the consequences would be catastrophic. The Government, of whatever colour, must protect our nation’s biosecurity. To do that, they must fully back the Animal and Plant Health Agency, which is in urgent need of support, as we have heard. I pay tribute to the veterinary professionals, animal officers, scientists and officials at the APHA, who do so much to keep our country biosecure. The APHA’s Weybridge site in Surrey is the UK’s primary capability for animal health science. In the previous Parliament, I sat on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and we strongly called for the redevelopment of the APHA’s Weybridge facilities. A 2022 report by the National Audit Office outlined that the APHA’s HQ needed a complete redevelopment, and I guested on the Public Accounts Committee when we looked at that report. The site needs an estimated £2.8 billion redevelopment; otherwise, we risk being left unprotected against a major animal disease outbreak or, as we have heard today, if we face simultaneous outbreaks of different diseases. The APHA is hanging on by its fingertips, and if it is challenged with multiple cases, we could have a catastrophe. It is therefore vital that the Government—and I look again at the Minister—invest fully in the APHA to ensure that it maintains state-of-the-art facilities that can identify, respond to and manage emerging risks. The previous Conservative Government rightly initiated plans, with a £1.2 billion commitment in 2020, so that work could begin, but that must now be followed up by necessary further capital investment as a matter of urgency. I note that in the Budget the new Government have committed £208 million to support Weybridge’s transformation—I am sure the Minister will cite that today. But they need to go much, much further, because that does not touch the sides. I therefore urge the Minister to make the case to Treasury colleagues for the site to be funded in full, and for the remaining £1.4 billion to be committed. I repeat: biosecurity is national security. Without the full funding, the APHA’s ability to respond to simultaneous infectious disease outbreaks will be severely limited, and we may have a national security disaster. I ask the Minister to please relay this message to his counterparts at the Treasury: investing in the redevelopment of the APHA headquarters is an investment in our nation’s biosecurity, our national security, our economy and the lives and livelihoods of generations to come. Before the general election, many Labour Members, including the Minister himself, called for this funding and for the full redevelopment. I now urge Ministers to put their money where their mouth is and urgently safeguard our biosecurity. If the Treasury will not deliver it through the DEFRA budget, I would urge it to consider delivering it through the Contingencies Fund. I repeat: biosecurity is national security—it needs to be paid for. I want to come back to farming. We need to support our farming communities when adversity strikes, such as acute disease outbreaks or extreme weather events. Where something is more chronic, as the hon. Member for Strangford said—such as when farms get a positive result during regular bovine TB testing—we need to make sure that the mental health of farmers, vets and everyone else is supported. I again cite the EFRA Committee, which in the last Parliament produced a report on rural mental health that looked at these issues very closely. The pressures on our farmers’ mental health are increasing day by day, with extreme weather events, animal disease outbreaks and financial pressures. The issue is now more important than ever, with the increased pressures that this Labour Government are unnecessarily putting on farming communities with—I have to say it—their incredibly ill-judged and heartless family farm tax. I look to the Minister and say, “Please reconsider.” Today we are holding a debate in the main Chamber on this heartless tax, and I hope that every Member in this Chamber, including Labour Members, and their colleagues, will vote for their farmers and their rural communities. That will send a strong message to the Government that they have got this wrong, and that they need to reverse this heartless, awful family farm tax. We have talked about mental health today, and I am keen for the Minister to reiterate what support the Government will give to the mental health of farmers and others in rural communities, who face infectious disease outbreaks when biosecurity breaks down, as well as extreme weather events, and financial stress and pressure. On that point, I want to mention the tremendous work of charities up and down the land in support of the mental health of our farming communities. They include YANA—Opposition Members will know it well, and I met it recently to discuss its outreach coming over into Essex from Suffolk and Norfolk—as well as RABI, Farmerados, the Farming Community Network, Yellow Wellies, Vetlife and many others. I say a deep and sincere thank you to them. In conclusion—I am being repetitive, but I think it is worth it—biosecurity is national security. Compromised biosecurity affects everything from animal health and public health to the price of food, trade, our position on the world stage and our precious environment. The covid pandemic sent us a clear message that some infectious diseases do not respect borders or species barriers. We ignore that at our peril. I urge the Government from the bottom of my heart to fully fund the APHA HQ redevelopment, to make sure that the burning pyres of slaughtered animals, and the economic and mental health devastation of foot and mouth, remain resolutely confined to the history books.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Biosecurity · Hansard source

  More

  I have a lot of respect for the Minister and I like him a lot as a person, too. I will ask a question about the APHA before he moves on from it. I acknowledge that the Government have put forward £208 million. The previous Government committed £1.2 billion. The APHA still needs £1.4 billion. I know that he cannot make Treasury commitments on behalf of the Chancellor, but please can he give assurances that DEFRA will keep making representations to the Treasury that the refurbishment we have discussed needs to be undertaken in full? The £208 million is a start to help with the transformation, but more money needs to be committed for national security. Please will he and his DEFRA colleagues make that case to Treasury? If the money cannot come from the DEFRA budget, it can come from the Contingencies Fund.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Biosecurity · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is turning to the contingency plans, so let me take us back to African swine fever, as he has not really touched on my question in that regard. Will there be the capability to have random spot checks within the port of Dover itself? We know that the inland centre will be up and running, but it is so important that unscrupulous people coming in know that they could be targeted within the port, so that these illegal meat imports can be snapped out.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Future of Farming · Hansard source

  More

  I am not going to give way, I am afraid. That tax hits at the heart of future thinking in farming, taking aim at the bond between farming parents and their sons and daughters, and punishing farming families who have worked their land for generations for acting in the best interest of their children and grandchildren, and of our country by looking after our environment and feeding our nation. What possible incentive can there be for sustainable, thoughtful farming or for improving the productivity of a field, flock or herd when, after a farmer has passed, the farm will have to be broken up to pay that unfair inheritance tax? There have also been, as we have heard today, worrying developments in the Government’s approach to capital grants. Those vital lifelines, which make possible the wider environmental objectives of the environmental land management schemes, have for some bizarre reason been suspended by the Labour Government, with no warning or phase-in period. Farmers want to be able to deliver food for our country in an environmentally friendly way, but that will only be possible if the Government of the day, of whatever political colour, is prepared to support them on that journey. The slashing of those grants is another hugely damaging development in relation to future impact on our farmers, which is what we are considering in this debate. We must clear away the dark clouds of the ill-judged, short-sighted Labour Budget, in particular the heartless family farm tax, which will damage food security, hollow out rural communities and deeply impact the mental health of the people living and working in those sectors. The Government must start listening now. They must reverse this awful tax, and we must help our farmers to see some sunlight on the horizon. In conclusion, biosecurity is national security. Food security is national security. The Government must start listening and actually look after the communities that nurture those critical factors for our country. I urge them to consider what they are doing and to do the right thing.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Future of Farming · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Sir Roger. It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship. I commend the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for securing this important, forward-looking debate, and for highlighting the challenges facing our farming communities—not least their mental health. In Parliament today, we have had the biosecurity debate in this Chamber, which I spoke in, the family farm tax debate that has just concluded, and this current debate. Three debates related to farming in one day show how important these issues are to this House, to our constituents and to the farmers who feed us and look after our precious environment.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Future of Farming · Hansard source

  More

  I will not give way, I am afraid. Hon. Members will all be aware of the ongoing situation with bluetongue virus, avian influenza, bovine TB and other diseases, of threats from outside the UK, from African swine fever to foot and mouth disease, and of the challenges that they pose to our livestock farmers, our economy and our national security. As I said this morning in this Chamber, biosecurity is national security. While I note that the Government have chosen to allocate £208 million for the transformation of the Animal and Plant Health Agency HQ in Weybridge, I urge the Minister to make representations to the Treasury to ensure that that HQ is funded in full. In 2020, the previous Government rightly committed £1.2 billion to start that off, but now we need the further full £1.4 billion to complete that critical national security measure. It is vital that we also make use of new technologies to further build our national resilience against livestock disease, and to protect human, animal and plant health. The Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, brought in by the Conservative Government, will help with that, in terms of disease resistance in plants and animals, and climate-resilient crop development. Likewise, wider innovation in machinery, horticulture, farming practices and sustainability are all positive processes. The elephant in the room today is family farm tax, and we cannot have a debate in which we do not include it.

• 3 Dec 2024 · Draft Movement of Goods (Northern Ireland to Great Britain) (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Transitory Provision and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the Minister for bringing forward the draft regulations for the Committee to scrutinise. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have some significant doubts and concerns about them, however, because of the impact that they might have on goods moving from Northern Ireland into Great Britain. Although we welcome the fact that some Northern Ireland goods that qualify will continue to have unfettered access to Great Britain and will not be subject to sanitary and phytosanitary controls, we have some concerns regarding the rest of the so-called non-qualifying goods and the impact that the regulations will have on businesses that regularly trade across the Irish sea. The Opposition will continue to scrutinise this secondary legislation and assess its impact. As was raised by the hon. Member for Worcester, given the temporary nature of the guidance, impact assessments will be needed on what it means for secure unfettered trade between GB and Northern Ireland. How will the Labour Government support businesses in Northern Ireland when trading across the sea to Great Britain? What about the other way around, where businesses in England, Scotland or Wales want to do business with Northern Ireland? How will the Government support that smooth trade? How will the Minister monitor the impact of this secondary legislation on the trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain? How will the Minister monitor its impact on businesses in Northern Ireland dealing with the regulations, and their success? Goods from Northern Ireland must be able to make it across the sea so that businesses there are not at an unfair disadvantage. Accordingly, as we have some concerns and reservations, the Opposition will be formally abstaining on this piece of secondary legislation. We look forward to scrutinising further, and to the Minister’s addressing our concerns about smooth trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain and about upholding the importance of biosecurity. We will press the Government to bring forward plans to encourage businesses to trade across the sea, so that we all benefit across our entire United Kingdom.

• 29 Nov 2024 · Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Animal welfare unites us in humanity. As a veterinary surgeon, a Member of Parliament and the shadow Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister, I can proudly say that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition strongly support this Bill in the interests of animal health and welfare.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Fishing Industry · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member spoke powerfully about safety from his unique perspective representing island and rural communities, and he talked passionately about the appeals for quotas to the Minister as well. It is important to highlight the benefits that we can and should reap following our departure from the European Union. For our fishing industry, that departure gave us the opportunity to increase our fishing quotas, which I am pleased the last Conservative Government took advantage of. As Members will be aware, the last Government began the process of replacing the EU’s common fisheries policy, which I think we agree was flawed, with a new bespoke framework for UK fisheries. Six fisheries management plans were consulted on, covering major species, including bass, scallop, lobster and crab. The last Government negotiated quotas of 750,000 tonnes in 2024, an 80,000 tonne increase compared with 2023 that was expected to deliver a £70 million boost for the fishing industry. Can the Minister provide clarity, for the sector and for Members present, on what the Government hope to achieve in the quotas for next year and how they will approach negotiations for 2026 and into the future? A significant fear is that the Government will use fishing as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the EU. Can the Minister quash those rumours now and assure our fishing communities across the United Kingdom that this Government will not let them down, as they are currently doing to farmers with their policies on the family farm tax on inheritance? We would like some reassurance from the Minister on that point. The new Government have published consultations for the next five fisheries management plans, which I welcome. Can the Minister confirm that they will remain live documents, constantly open to review, updates and improvements, to ensure that those FMPs reach their objectives? As has been said, in December 2021, the Conservative Government allocated £100 million specifically to support the long-term future of our UK fishing sector, supporting job creation and boosting seafood exports to new markets. Can the Minister clarify whether the Government will continue with that support or provide any additional funding to benefit the long-term future of the UK fishing sector? Can the Minister also commit to publishing an impact assessment of the Government’s new labour and employment reforms, including the increase in national insurance contributions and its specific impact on the fishing industry, including the fish processing sector and coastal communities? I am also keen to press the Minister on several issues that we encountered on the EFRA Committee in areas that I led on in certain respects. I hope that the Minister can provide some clarity on the Government’s position today, not least because the sector has been waiting with considerable concern following the general election, as Labour’s manifesto was pretty short on fishing—in fact, it failed to mention it at all. Last year, in the last Parliament, the EFRA Committee published its cross-party report on marine mammals, after an inquiry that I triggered. The report highlighted the issue of bycatch, in which seals, dolphins and other sea life are tragically snarled in fishing gear. Sadly, it is estimated that more than 650,000 marine mammals die each year from being needlessly caught worldwide, including more than 1,000 cetaceans in UK waters. The last Government consulted on the introduction of remote electronic monitoring. Electronic monitoring systems utilise a range of technology, including cameras, gear sensors, GPS units and more. The last Government began to implement electronic monitoring systems in all priority fisheries, with the aim of achieving that by 2029. Those monitoring systems apply to all vessels over 10 metres in length and active within fisheries in English waters, including non-UK vessels. Once we were satisfied that the implementation issues had been resolved for each priority fishery, the plan was to make it mandatory to have such systems installed. It was noted that there would be two years’ notice to give vessels time to adapt and for installation to take place. Will the Minister tell us what the Government are going to do in that regard? Does that remain the plan? What are the timescales? Marine Management Organisation rules state that fishermen and women in UK waters must self-report all cetacean bycatch within 48 hours of their fishing journey, but very few reports are submitted. According to the MMO, six marine mammals were reported by fishing vessels as bycatch injury or mortality in 2023. In stark contrast, the previous Government’s bycatch monitoring programme estimated that between 502 and 1,560 harbour porpoises, 165 to 662 common dolphins, and 375 to 872 seals—both grey and harbour—were captured as bycatch in UK fisheries in 2019. Does the Minister agree that that suggests there is significant under-reporting of cetacean and other marine mammal bycatch? Will the Minister clarify what the Government are doing to improve the monitoring, reporting and prevention of such tragic and upsetting bycatch? I have worked closely with Whale and Dolphin Conservation, the World Cetacean Alliance, the Sussex Dolphin Project and the Blue Marine Foundation, which are great organisations that seek to make fishing safer for the marine mammals that share the seas and oceans that we harvest fish from. Will the Minister commit to working with such organisations to tackle this issue, which unites us in humanity? No one wants to see those air-breathing mammals horrifically caught up by the fishing industry. The UK has a very important role to play as a global soft power. Like all Members, I am strongly opposed to the hunting of any cetaceans—dolphins, whales or porpoises. There is no humane way to kill a whale, so that barbaric practice must end. Although there is a tradition in the Faroe Islands of killing pilot whales and dolphins for meat and other products, the previous Government long expressed their concern about the welfare issues surrounding those cetacean hunts and the domestic regulation currently in place. Ministers in the previous Government urged the Faroe Islands to look at alternatives to the hunting of dolphins and encouraged its representatives to consider the many economic and social benefits that responsible cetacean watching can bring to coastal communities. During the joint committee on trade with the Faroe Islands in 2022, Ministers raised the UK’s opposition to the continued hunting of dolphins in the Faroe Islands on animal welfare and conservation grounds. I therefore hope the Minister will confirm that the new Government will uphold the previous Government’s position and use every appropriate opportunity to advocate for the end of cetacean hunts in the Faroe Islands. This issue sadly stretches further than the Faroe Islands. Horrifically, whaling is still practised in various countries, including Norway, Iceland and Japan. Will the Minister outline how the Government are approaching countries that still conduct whaling?

• 28 Nov 2024 · Fishing Industry · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who is Chair of the EFRA Committee, on securing a debate on such an important topic for fishermen and women in our coastal communities right across the United Kingdom. Fish are one of the most valuable and powerful resources for our country; we must protect, preserve and nurture them, and support the industries that harvest them for us. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are committed to supporting our coastal communities and our fishing industries. We have had a wide-ranging debate. There have been powerful contributions from across the United Kingdom, and there was a lot of expertise within them. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland spoke powerfully about the negotiations, the importance of science, and the balance between economics and conservation. He also touched on the importance of safety in the industry, a point echoed by many Members. The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) talked about the importance of data and monitoring, while my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), who is a proud champion of her local farming and fishing communities, spoke about the issues of food security and the role fishing plays in that. She talked about spatial squeezing and the TCA negotiations and, at the end of her speech, she talked powerfully about the importance of the RNLI and how much we owe them for keeping people safe at sea. The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) talked about sustainability, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), who is also a proud champion for both his farming and fishing constituents, talked powerfully about safety and danger in the fishing industry. He also talked about spatial squeezing and gave his expert analysis of the ongoing fishing negotiations, which was welcome. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) talked about the negotiations and the need for a longer-term perspective. She spoke about the importance of the processing industry, which was valuable. I was pleased that she heaped praise on the £100 million UK seafood fund, which was brought in by the Conservative Government in 2021 to support the future and the sustainability of the UK fisheries and seafood sector. I thank her for praising that Conservative policy. The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) talked about safety and echoed many of the scientific themes, and the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner)—with whom I served in the previous Parliament on the EFRA Committee, where we received regular briefings from DEFRA about the complexities of the fishing negotiations—talked powerfully about the importance of science and sustainability, data monitoring and the safety implications of fishing. I will move now to the Western Isles, the name of which I am going to struggle to pronounce, so help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton)—

• 28 Nov 2024 · Fishing Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. What steps are the Government taking in international negotiations to stop that cruel practice? When negotiating fishing arrangements, trade deals or anything else, UK diplomats and Ministers must make the ethical case to countries that those unacceptable practices must end. Can the Minister reassure the House that the new Labour Government will continue to play their part on the world stage to end whaling once and for all? It is important to work collaboratively with our international partners to ensure that global waters can thrive. Sustainability in fishing is pivotal to preserve these diverse ecosystems. Indeed, using a scientific, evidence-based approach that ensures high ecological and environmental standards in fishing from all fishing countries is paramount for sustaining our precious seas and oceans and ensuring responsible global trade. I welcome the introduction of highly protected marine areas that protect all species, habitats and associated ecosystem processes within the site boundary, including the seabed and the water column. HPMAs allow the protection and full recovery of marine ecosystems. By setting aside some areas of the sea with high levels of protection, HPMAs allow nature to fully recover to a more natural state, and allow the ecosystem to thrive. Can the Minister update Members on the Government’s plans regarding the development of HPMAs?

• 28 Nov 2024 · Fishing Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful that the Minister is acknowledging the importance of protecting marine mammals while harvesting from the seas and oceans. When he is around the table with his officials, will he address the other countries, such as Norway? Perhaps it will be his colleagues in the Department for International Trade when they are negotiating arrangements with Japan. On talking about the horrific nature of whaling continuing in the 21st century, can he assure everyone that this UK Government will stand firm and use their power in those rooms to put an end to whaling right across the world?