Victoria Atkins MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Jun 2025 · Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. May I begin by correcting the Secretary of State? When he refers to private sector investment, he is in fact referring to the bill increases that each and every one of us will pay—£31 a year—so when he talks about private sector investment, he means bill payers’ investment. Some 16 million residents and bill payers will have been concerned by this morning’s news that the private equity firm KKR has pulled out of its rescue deal with Thames Water. According to a source close to KKR, one of the reasons it pulled out was its concern about negative rhetoric directed at Thames Water and the rest of the industry in recent weeks by the Secretary of State and other Ministers. In other words, the Secretary of State and his Ministers have talked themselves out of this rescue deal. I am bound to say, if only they could do the same thing with the Chagos islands deal. On which date did the Secretary of State discover that KKR was thinking of pulling out of this deal, and what involvement did he have in the phone calls over the weekend between KKR and No. 10 spads to try to rescue it? I ask because in recent weeks there have been briefings to the press that he is considering temporary renationalisation. The Treasury has apparently instructed him that he will need to find up to £4 billion from the budget of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to cover the cost of this manoeuvre. Let me put that in context: the entire farming budget for this year is roughly £2.5 billion. Can the Secretary of State therefore explain the options to which he has just referred, and do they include a plan for temporary renationalisation? From which budget would a temporary renationalisation come: DEFRA or central funds? That question is particularly relevant in view of the upcoming spending review, on which there has been detailed briefing, including the suggestion that the DEFRA budget is to be slashed. The Secretary of State referred to the Cunliffe report, which we will of course look at very carefully, but can he confirm—this recalls yesterday’s shambolic defence review announcement—that there is no funding for this latest review, and that it will do nothing to resolve the immediate issue of Thames Water’s solvency, which he has mishandled, just as he has mishandled the family farm tax, the fishing industry and the sustainable farming incentive?

• 8 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  As we mark the 80th anniversary of victory in Europe, I remember the great role that my constituency played, including 617 Squadron, flying from RAF Woodhall Spa; we must also remember and thank those women and men who formed the Land Army in order to feed our troops and our nation. Many of their descendants still farm the same fields that their ancestors farmed in the war, but that tradition is under threat from this Government. Before Christmas, I warned the Secretary of State that a farmer had taken their life because they were so worried about the family farm tax. The Secretary of State responded with anger, and later stopped the farming resilience fund, which helped farmers with mental ill health. This week, I have received the devastating news that several more farmers have taken their life because of the family farm tax. That is the Secretary of State’s legacy, but he can change it, because this change is not yet law. Will he set out these tragedies to the Prime Minister and demand that Labour policy be changed, or offer, on a point of principle, his resignation?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way in a moment. For example, the Secretary of State recently pledged to clean up Lake Windermere so that only rainwater flows into it. It was a laudable ambition. Who can disagree with that ambition? However, he gave no timeframe and no plan for delivering this vision. I have also visited the constituency of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). I met local residents and farmers—something I do not think the Secretary of State managed to do—and business owners recently. [ Interruption. ] Well, they do notice. They are not holding their breath for action because, rather like his no farming policy, it is all talk and no action. A significant amount of the Government’s supposedly groundbreaking water legislation, including the measures on monitoring, blocking bonuses, and fines, was already brought in by the previous Government. Sadly, they rejected our amendment to maintain the important water restoration fund to protect waterways, including chalk streams, many of which are in my constituency. I genuinely hope that they will reconsider that.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  Wow! Where is the energy? Where is the gusto? Rewriting history seems to be a theme this week for the Government, but there we go. That is a little bit delicate for Labour Back Benchers, given the discussions this week. We banned bonuses for the bosses of water companies that have committed criminal breaches and water companies that illegally pollute our rivers can be prosecuted, making it clear that polluters will pay for damage to our natural environment. I hope that in her wind-up, the Minister will answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) about fines being ringfenced for local areas, and the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) about the amendment she tabled to the Water (Special Measures) Act. The Secretary of State, as is his nervous tic, merely fell back on whatever they say about the past, rather than setting out his vision for the future. I can always tell when I am getting to him, bless him. We quadrupled water company inspections and set in place a plan to have 4,000 inspections a year by April 2025, increasing to 10,000 a year from April 2026. Will the Government commit to that vital work, or will the Chancellor cut the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs budget so starkly that they are cancelled?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  No. I will come to the hon. Gentleman in due course. I have said that this is the Liberal Democrats’ Opposition day debate, and I will give them the respect that they deserve. The improved knowledge must lead to action. As I am delighted the Secretary of State acknowledged, one of the most tangible improvements in the past decade is just a few metres away under our feet—the Thames tideway tunnel. Sadly, he did not have the generosity of spirit to acknowledge the role that the Conservative Government played in that. This multibillion-pound infrastructure project, announced and delivered by the Conservative Government, has already stopped 500,000 tonnes of sewage flowing into the River Thames since it started operating in February. Over time, the 16 mile pipe is expected to stop 95% of sewage spills that would previously have polluted the River Thames. That meaningful action is already making a real difference to our nation’s capital—built on the data that some laugh at—and I ask genuinely: where is Labour’s plan for more? In government, we also wanted to clear up the water industry and our environment. It was the Environment Act 2021, passed by the last Government, that gave stronger powers to regulators and imposed strict demands for tackling pollution. We set legally binding targets to improve water quality and availability, and to reduce nutrient pollution. We rolled out catchment-sensitive farming to all farms in England. We stepped up the requirements for investment, including investment from water companies, and storm overflow improvements. After 14 years in opposition, the Labour party should have come into office with a plan of what more needs to be done to fix this century-old problem and, what is more, have set that plan in action last summer with energy and gusto. [ Interruption. ] The Secretary of State is chuntering from a sedentary position, but may I say what a delight it is to see him in the Chamber? Normally, he is running frit from farmers. Instead of a plan, we have had an underwhelming trickle—a review, yet another talking shop forum that has done nothing other than have a meeting, and a Bill which, as we said during its passage, sets out much of what was already happening. As with every other part of this Government, Ministers had no plan, and they are now trying to come up with one.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  I respect the fact that this is the Liberal Democrats’ Opposition day debate, so I have been cutting parts out of my speech. I therefore hope the House will forgive me if I do not take every intervention that is offered to me. I thank the Liberal Democrats for choosing to debate this important issue. We all know and agree that there are fundamental problems facing the water and sewerage industry. A drainage and sewerage system that was first built in the Victorian era does not meet the needs of the population it must now serve, or the pressures of more frequent and severe weather events. To fix the problem, we must first diagnose it and measure it. That is why the previous Government took the essential step of radically overhauling the monitoring of storm overflows. On previous occasions, the Secretary of State has dismissed the significance of that data collection and monitoring. That is unfair, because when we came into government in 2010, the Labour Government had left us and the Liberal Democrats in the coalition Government with a water system that was out of control; just 7% of storm overflows were monitored. In other words, people across the country were swimming and playing in water without knowing that it had been contaminated with raw sewage. I had the pleasure of going to school in Blackpool, and there were certain times of the summer season when locals would not venture into the sea, because we knew the consequences of daring to do so. The point I would make to everyone in this Chamber is that this is a long-standing set of problems. To pretend otherwise—I know some people get a little carried away with their advocacy—does not do the public, our constituents or, indeed, our waterways the justice that they deserve. We are proud of the fact that by the time we left government we had met our ambitious target to ensure that 100% of storm overflows were monitored. The importance of that is emphasised—

• 22 Apr 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Post Office Horizon scandal affected many innocent people, including a constituent of mine who has been waiting for a response to their claim under the group litigation orders scheme since August last year. I wrote to the Minister for services, small business and exports, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), on 10 December last year about that delay. Despite chasing the Minister more than 10 times, and being assured repeatedly that an answer was on its way—in fact, the latest reply was that I was to expect an answer by Easter—I have still had no response to my letter, and my constituent is still waiting. They cannot understand why they have received no answer from this Government. How might we ensure an urgent response to my constituent on this very sensitive matter, and for those other Horizon victims who are also apparently experiencing delays with the scheme?

• 20 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State cannot find his way around a farmyard; he is certainly not speaking to farmers. We Conservatives know that if the Government continue to tax, tax, tax businesses, they will break. His answers show why we have seen cold fury in the countryside at his impotence in standing up to the Chancellor on compulsory purchase orders, the massive cuts to de-linked payments, the stopping of capital grants and SFI and, of course, the family farm fax. Ahead of next week’s emergency Budget and spending review, and given that The Guardian seems to know more than he does, will the Secretary of State guarantee that his Government’s Budget will not face further swingeing cuts?

• 13 Mar 2025 · Farming · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this important debate. I thank him for bringing his expertise as Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to the discussion. May I welcome, although I am not supposed to, the farmers in the Public Gallery who have been known making their views, not all of them terribly happy, about various contributions during the debate, and the tractors outside? We cannot hear the tractors in the Chamber, but they have been tooting as loudly as they possibly can. I am not sure the tooting is to welcome the SFI scandal that emerged on Tuesday, but no doubt the farming Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), will be able to help us with that. This debate should have been filled with positivity and confidence about the future of British farming. Instead, it has been overshadowed by this Labour Government’s farming fiasco. In just a few short months, this city-dwelling Government have destroyed families’ ambitions for the future, put at risk generations of expertise and custodianship and, less than 48 hours ago, ripped the rug out from underneath businesses immediately. This Government have treated farmers and the countryside with unashamed contempt, and that contempt has consequences. The NFU announced this week that farm business confidence has reached historically low levels, and that was before the SFI scandal on Tuesday night. New tractor registrations are at the lowest level since 1998. When I visited the Lincolnshire Agricultural Machinery Manufacturers Association in January—the farming Minister apparently could not make it—manufacturers were telling me how people are not investing in new machinery as a direct result of the Budget. I am afraid RoboCrop will have to wait for the next Conservative Government. Just as the Chancellor inherited the fastest-growing economy in the G7 and has ground it down into stagflation, so too the Secretary of State inherited a growing farming sector that had gone through massive change since Brexit, but was seizing the new farming and environmental opportunities available. After a few months of this city-centric Government, farming families are feeling “ignored, alienated and disrespected”, to use the Secretary of State’s own words. But where is the Secretary of State? I have been hunting high and low for him, but nowhere is he to be found. He had a major announcement yesterday, but he sent his poor junior Minister out to take the flak because the Secretary of State is missing in action. Where are rural Labour MPs? [Hon. Members: “Here!”] We have heard about a rebel force—

• 13 Mar 2025 · Farming · Hansard source

  More

  Oh, I would not do that if I were you. We have heard about a rebel force of Labour MPs who are going to stand up to the Government on the family farm tax. This debate is their chance to show their support for their farmers, but where are they? A total of 10 Labour MPs have turned up and six have spoken—that is 1.4% of the parliamentary party. The Labour Government’s farming fiasco policy can be summarised in three points: they will remove, without warning, farming and environmental schemes that help farms thrive and on which farms build their business cases; they will permit the state to seize farmland without consent or market value; and, if family farms manage to cling on despite that, Labour will tax farmers for dying. Let us deal with the first point: the abrupt halting of the sustainable farming incentive and the massive cut to delinked payments. The Government sneaked the SFI decision out late on Tuesday night, before being dragged to the Dispatch Box by us yesterday. That is a chaotic and inept way for a Government to treat taxpayers, businesses and families. Yesterday, the Minister kept using the figure of £5 billion for farming over two years—2024-25 and 2025-26. Of course, the funding for the first year, 2024-25, was set by the previous Government, including the £300 million that was rolled over from the previous year. It is for Labour Ministers to set the budget for 2025-26 after the spending review. Will the Minister confirm that the DEFRA budget will not face substantial cuts in the spending review, given he has relied on that figure so much? If he cannot confirm that, then those figures are meaningless, as Ministers are counting money for 2025-26 that could be removed at a stroke by the Chancellor. The decision on SFI has consequences, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) and for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) have made clear. David from Gloucestershire, a farmer, asks the Minister whether he should simply plough up his farm and turn his back on 25 years of farming with an environmental focus. He says: “We are a small family farm…I won’t be able to afford environmental principles, everyone loses but the environment mostly.” We have heard from hon. Members about how farmers have contacted them because they face a financial crisis as a result of this decision, yet the no-farming Minister told them that they should be celebrating—well, the tractors outside do not seem to be tooting in celebration at his announcement yesterday. Let us move on to delinked payments, which were cut in the Budget. Tens of thousands of farmers who are not signed up to SFI in any of its iterations are still being subjected to a 76% cut in their delinked direct payments, leaving many in cash flow crisis, including tenant farmers. That was not mentioned at all by the hon. Members for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley), for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter), for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) or for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer). An urgent issue facing the industry is the importance of biosecurity to the future of farming. The second case of foot and mouth disease in Europe is alarming, but we have heard nothing from the Government on that. Will the Minister confirm whether funding for Dover Port Health Authority has now been agreed, outline how he is preventing the rising trend of bushmeat being sold over social media platforms and explain why the Government continue to ignore our calls to increase funding for the redevelopment of Weybridge? I can reveal what the Secretary of State and the Farming Minister have been prioritising this week. They have issued a consultation not on SFI, the family farm tax or cuts to delinked payments, but on how to carry a chicken. I am sure everybody thinks that really is the national priority for farming at the moment. Let us turn to the Government’s plans to undercut property rights and force farmers to sell their land at below market value. This is a policy that goes against the fundamental British principle of land ownership and puts food security and prices at risk—my hon. Friends set out the case on that. We then move on to the points made about the family farm tax, which the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) criticised as being a distraction. The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal seemed to be arguing for more taxes on farmers, but at least those Labour Members mentioned the family farm tax. The hon. Members for Shrewsbury, for South West Norfolk, for Cannock Chase, for St Austell and Newquay and for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland did not see fit to mention it, because they are ignoring the facts of life on this. As Conservative Members know, this policy is having a genuine emotional and economic toll on farmers throughout the United Kingdom. One farmer told me: “I’ve stopped encouraging my daughter to spend time on the farm so I don’t have to have the conversation of why she can’t take over in the future.” This Government are robbing the next generation of farmers of their future, and this is also having a devastating impact on elderly farmers. It was shared in the Senedd this week that a farmer declined cancer treatment months before his death as he wanted to make sure that he died before these changes came into effect. That is desperately harrowing, yet we are being told this week in, week out by farming organisations, all because the Chancellor—who, by the way, refuses to meet farmers—is destroying British farming with her taxation policy. This is not just about the family farm tax: it is about the family business tax, the national insurance hike, the fertiliser tax and the double cab pick-up tax, which were all set out by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. You name it, the Government will tax it. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said that farmers see no future in farming under this Government. In the words of one mid Devon farmer: “At no time in all these years have I felt so deflated with the job.” To the farmers despairing at this city-dwelling Government: please know that we Conservatives hear you, support you and will work with you to mend the outright assault on the countryside that this Labour Government are carrying out. Together, we will build a bright future for farming.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), has been asked repeatedly why no notice was given to farmers of the closure of the SFI scheme. He has given a range of answers, including that “people have known for weeks and weeks—months”. He even stretched it to five years ago. This is important, not least because business decisions are having to be made on the fly today, but also because there may be legal consequences to the answer that the Minister has given. How can we encourage the Minister to correct the record and state the fact that no notice was given to farmers?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Sustainable Farming Incentive · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for an advance copy of his statement, which I am going to pull apart in a moment. I thank you as well, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question that forced the Minister to the Dispatch Box, because the Government sneaked this statement out last night, presumably hoping nobody would notice; but, guess what, the countryside has noticed, because the question we are all asking ourselves is: what have this Government got against farmers and the countryside? They sneaked out this announcement that they were halting the sustainable farming incentive scheme immediately. The scheme replaced the EU’s common agricultural policy scheme when we left the EU. We set up this scheme with our Brexit freedoms to establish a farming policy that works for farmers, the environment and food production, yet Labour pulled the plug without warning last night. The SFI scheme is popular with farmers, but the Minister does not have to take my word for it. To quote one: “The…schemes have the potential to be the most progressive and environmentally responsible schemes of their kind anywhere in the world.” Those are the words of the former president of the Country Land and Business Association, and father of the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell), who I am sure will agree with his father’s analysis. Why, then, would this city-dwelling Government stop such a successful scheme? In the words of the CLA president, Victoria Vyvyan: “Of all the betrayals so far, this is the most cruel. It actively harms nature. It actively harms the environment. And, with war once again raging in Europe, to actively harm our food production is reckless beyond belief.” Does the Minister think she is wrong? The Secretary of State, by the way, is missing in action. This is a significant statement, yet he is sending out his junior Minister to take the heat. Perhaps it is because the Secretary of State did not want me to remind him of his own words in November, when he said that farmers “feel ignored, alienated and disrespected”. I do hope the Minister will tell us how that is going. This Government’s farming policy can be summarised in three sentences. First, they will halt any farming and environmental scheme on which farmers rely without warning or consultation, using criteria they have never before defined. Secondly, the state will seize their farmland at will through the compulsory purchase orders that were announced yesterday in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Thirdly, if families have managed to cling on to their farms despite all that, then Labour will tax them for dying. However, I am delighted to hear that the Minister for farming himself can see that farmers do not make enough money—I hope he will be changing the family farm tax. It all adds up to nothing less than an outright assault on the countryside. As a proud rural MP—someone who actually likes the countryside—I am already being contacted by constituents and farmers across the United Kingdom who have had the door slammed in their face with no notice, asking how they are meant to diversify, make a living and protect our countryside. The Prime Minister has said he understood the significance of losing a farm, acknowledging that it “can’t come back”, and warned against “constantly moving the goalposts” for the agricultural sector, yet that is exactly what his Government are doing. The statement issued by the Government last night was a masterclass in Orwellian doublespeak. It says that the SFI scheme has “reached completion”. What criteria have they used? They have not set those criteria out before. The Government’s own website stated that up to six weeks’ notice would be given for the withdrawal of SFI. Why was that disregarded last night? Does the Minister recognise that, in doing so, this Government have betrayed the trust of the farming community yet again? How many farmers does his Department believe will now be caught out without an SFI agreement during the transition period of at least a year? Just as with the family farm tax, Labour has got its figures wrong. The CLA has asked me to ask the Minister some questions. What are his Government’s ambitions for the two thirds of farmers in England who are not currently in environmental schemes? How much have the vast cuts to payments under the basic payment scheme saved his Department, and where has that money gone? How will the Secretary of State support upland farmers who were intending to move on to the sustainable farming incentive scheme? Then, of course, there are the legal problems cause by last night’s announcement. How will the Government meet their legally binding environmental targets, given that they rely so heavily on the SFI scheme? I do hope that the Minister will be able to give us a good, clear legal analysis on the impact of the changes to SFI on internal market competition law between England and other devolved authorities. Any words that the Minister uses about food security are meaningless in the face of this policy, particularly as we all know that this Government have been delaying consideration and grants of these applications since the general election. The figures that the Minister is using are wrong and the theory behind this policy is very questionable, yet the Government would have us all believe that he understands farming and the impact that this measure will have on farmers. Farmers are in despair. My message to farmers is clear: we have got your back; we will help you, so please hang on in there for the next four years; we will axe the family farm tax; and we will sort out this shocking mess of SFI, to help build a bright future for British farming with British farmers.

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

  More

  You voted for this policy.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I do not think the Secretary of State either understood my question or knows the answer, because I asked him when he will confirm the funding. Compare this relaxed approach with the Prime Minister’s seeming desperation to pay more than the entire DEFRA budget to surrender the Chagos islands. Does the Secretary of State really support taxing British farming families for dying, slashing winter fuel payments for rural pensioners, and hiking taxes on rural businesses to pay £9 billion to a foreign Government on some dodgy legal advice from Labour lawyers?

• 30 Jan 2025 · Avian Influenza · Hansard source

  More

  This is a very difficult time for birdkeepers and farmers, particularly those whose birds have died or been culled, and all those who have had to upend their flocks and move them inside, given the impact that doing so can have on both the mental and economic resilience of individuals. I thank everyone who is involved in tackling avian influenza, and is working tirelessly to prevent the spread of this disease, including in my constituency. I thank the Minister for his response. I regret that the Secretary of State has not made an oral statement on this important matter; particularly in the light of the revelation that a farm worker has been infected with avian influenza, I would have thought that the Secretary of State would have thought to update the House. However, we have managed to secure this urgent question, for which I am grateful. On the subject of the farm worker infected with the virus in the west midlands, first, how is this person? Have they recovered, and has anyone else been infected? What are the wider risks to human health? Elsewhere, one of the largest and most modern egg-laying sites in the country has been affected, with more than a million birds being culled. Given the site’s significant role in processing the UK’s barn egg production, what discussions is the Minister having with the sector to mitigate the impact on supply? Will he please update us on his discussions with the devolved Governments about introducing similar restrictions to those in England? Of course birds, and indeed viruses, do not recognise borders. How is he ensuring that compensation is made without delay, and how much is it costing? Is the Department keeping the scheme under review, including the loss of profit for farmers and the conservation impacts for zoos housing rare and critically endangered species, such as the Bali starling at Battersea zoo, which I visited this week? We are also concerned by reports that the avian influenza vaccination taskforce has stalled. Is that correct and, if so, why? Finally, DEFRA Ministers—

• 28 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I thank everyone who has scrutinised and worked on the Bill in both Houses, including the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), our very efficient Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), and the noble Lord Roborough, who led very constructive discussions in the other place. It is a shame that the Government rejected the amendments put forward today. I thank the Doorkeepers, the hon. Members who chaired the Committee and everyone who helped His Majesty’s official Opposition to scrutinise the Bill. Across the House, we can all agree that there are fundamental problems facing the water and sewerage industry. Since 2010, the number of designated bathing waters has increased; we have seen a significant improvement in water quality ratings, with more water rated as excellent or good; and an increase in blue flag beaches. But of course we want to see more. We were, in fact, the first Government in history to set out that storm overflows must be reduced, and our landmark Environment Act 2021 gave stronger powers to regulators and imposed strict demands for tackling pollution. We set legally binding targets to improve water quality and availability, and to reduce nutrient pollution. We rolled out catchment-sensitive farming to all farms in England. We stepped up the requirements for investment, including investment from water companies and storm overflow improvements, and nationally significant infrastructure projects such as the Thames tideway tunnel super sewer. When we came into government, just 7% of storm overflows were monitored. When we left government, we had increased that to 100%. We support the Bill, but we do so with some disappointment at its lack of ambition. Frankly, as we have said before, much of what the Bill tries to do, including monitoring, blocking bonuses and fines, was brought in by the Conservatives in government. We say that the primary legislation is not necessary, but we will of course support the Bill. I am especially disappointed that the Government have declined to accept our amendments. In particular, it is woeful that they have failed to put the water restoration fund into legislation. [Interruption.] I will deal with the Minister’s comments in a moment. The public rightly want to see the Government addressing water quality, but rather water company fines being used to restore water bodies, that money will be going into the gaping hole of the Treasury’s coffers, presumably in an attempt to undo some of the damage caused by the Chancellor’s disastrous growth-blocking, tax-hiking, job-cutting, investment-plummeting Budget. Now I am going to correct the Minister, and I will do so from the Dispatch Box rather than through a point of order. Last summer it emerged that Thames Water, Yorkshire Water and Northumbrian Water would be fined a record £160 million between them for a “catalogue of failure” over illegal sewage discharges, subject to consultation. However, in August—when this Government were in power—the Treasury held back those fines, which were due to go into the water restoration fund to help clean up affected areas. The Minister gave figures earlier, but it is her Government’s fault that money was not paid into that fund. We on the side of the House believe that the polluters should pay for their mistakes, rather than their fines paying for pay rises for the Government’s trade union buddies. [Interruption.] Yes, I am sure that the train drivers are very grateful.

• 23 Jan 2025 · Agricultural and Business Property Reliefs: OBR Costing · Hansard source

  More

  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment she has made of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s supplementary forecast information release on the costing of changes to agricultural and business property relief.

• 23 Jan 2025 · Agricultural and Business Property Reliefs: OBR Costing · Hansard source

  More

  Having inherited the fastest-growing economy in the G7, the Chancellor’s Budget has led to the highest borrowing costs since the pandemic, growth flatlining, business confidence plummeting and job freezes. Who has Labour chosen to pay the price for its economic illiteracy? Pensioners, family businesses and farmers. For months, farmers, farming businesses, professional advisers and economists, and now eight major supermarkets, have warned the Chancellor that she has got her figures wrong, but Ministers cleave desperately to their soundbites. Let us hope that they listen to the OBR. Yesterday, the independent OBR released additional information about this particular measure and reiterated the “‘high’ uncertainty” of the predicted yield. It noted that the yield of the measure is likely to be reduced by 35% because of behavioural responses, and that it is unlikely to reach a steady state for 20 years. The OBR also expressed grave concerns about the impact on older individuals and their ability to plan. In short, the reassurances provided by Ministers are falling almost as flat as the economy. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has lectured this House about the perils of sidelining the OBR. In light of its analysis, will the Minister now commit to a full and proper review of this dreadful policy? The public have noticed that Government Ministers are failing to answer reasonable questions about their policies, so will the Minister please give straight answers to the farmers and businesses watching our proceedings today? In light of the new analysis, how many farms does the Treasury think will be affected by the changes to APR, APR/BPR and BPR alone? What assessment has he made of the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers’ finding that the Chancellor has underestimated the number of farms affected by the changes by a factor of five? How many tenant farmers will be evicted? As worrying reports of suicides among farmers begin to emerge, will the Minister please do what the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has failed to do and measure the number of suicides over the next 12 months, so that we can understand the human cost of this policy? Finally, why does the Minister think that Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda, Morrisons, Marks & Spencer, Aldi, Lidl and the Co-op have all come out against this tax policy and believe the Treasury’s figures to be wrong? Why does he think they are wrong and he is right?

• 19 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  How heartless and how extraordinary that the Secretary of State is more discomfited by being presented with the facts of the consequences of his policy than the reality of what this policy ensures. I was a Minister for seven and a half years, and I have never seen a policy have the consequences that this one has. [Interruption.] Members of the public will see Labour Members reacting in that way because I have dared to present them with the facts. We know that there is a tragically high suicide rate among the farming community. The National Farmers Union gave evidence about this, and the Secretary of State has been told repeatedly. Will he collect data on a monthly basis of suicides from farmers, farming families, landowners and family businesses, so that we, the House and the outside community can understand the human costs of this tax policy before it comes into force?

• 19 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I wish a merry Christmas to everyone in the House, and also to everyone in our farming, food, hospitality and water sectors. But not everyone will be able to celebrate Christmas. In recent weeks, a farmer took himself off to a remote part of his farm and killed himself. The message he left his family, who wish to remain anonymous, is that he did this because he feared becoming a financial burden to his family because of changes to inheritance tax. This is the human cost of the figures that the Secretary of State provides so casually. What does the Secretary of State say to that grieving family?

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

  More

  I will do in a moment—I am not like the Secretary of State. The truth is that Labour Members do not like hearing the facts. We brought forward measures to ensure that companies that pollute the environment can be hit with unlimited financial penalties. We also set up the water restoration fund, meaning that any fines or penalties levelled at water companies were ringfenced to support projects that improve the environment and keep pressure off bills, rather than being returned to the Treasury. The fact that Ministers appear to have stalled the fund reveals how little this Government understand the countryside or care about it. Indeed, it looks like they have held back £168 million in fines that were due to be paid into the fund. Why on earth would this Labour Government not want polluters to pay? Why are they content for fines of many millions of pounds to be paid into the Treasury slush fund, rather than local environmental projects that have been damaged by storm overflows? Does the Treasury really need that money, or is it perhaps paying for the Deputy Prime Minister’s new, flash apartment? My colleagues and I will work to ensure that the water restoration fund is reinstated and that money goes to local environment projects to protect local environments, as was intended. Most of the measures in this Bill, including monitoring, blocking bonuses and significant fines, were in fact brought it by the Conservative Government. Indeed, primary legislation is not necessary to put most of these measures into practice.

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

  More

  Of course the constituents’ experience that the hon. Lady has described is not acceptable. I do not think anyone would say that it was. Sometimes the public are switched off by this back and forth, because the idea that anyone would be content with the experience that she has described is for the birds. The difference that we draw on—I hope we will have a much more constructive conversation about water than this—is that the investment that was made by the last Government in flooding has had many benefits across the country but, as I acknowledged at the beginning of my speech, there is more to be done. That is why we will support the Bill, but we will be looking to improve it. I just want to make sure that the Minister got the point that I was making. The amendment that came from the Lords to improve accountability on debt levels and on the financial structuring of water companies is a critical one, and I very much hope that the Government will address this and set out their commitment to keep that amendment that the noble Lords saw fit to put in the Bill. As I say, in Committee and beyond, the Conservatives will look to deliver effective and constructive amendments to this Bill, but I put down this marker. It is surprising—and, I have to say, disappointing—that the Government have failed to grasp that water companies and sewage are just two elements in managing, maintaining and improving our waterways and water quality. Where are the plans for investment in infrastructure? Where are the plans for nature-based solutions? Where are the plans for the roles of other businesses? As we face the likelihood of increased bills being announced this week, what guarantees and reassurances can the Government give to bill payers? And what plans do the Government have to separate foul water and surface water systems? That is a critical infrastructure question that I hope we will get some answers to in the coming weeks. How will the Government encourage investment, particularly given the depressive effects on growth that this Chancellor and her Budget are having on the economy?

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

  More

  I welcome the opportunity to debate the vital issue of water and how this Bill may be improved. The Secretary of State will be relieved to hear that I intend to focus on water quality tonight, rather than his selling of farmers, fishermen and family businesses down the river—we dealt with that this afternoon at the London Palladium summit. Across the House, we agree that there are fundamental problems facing the water and sewerage industry that span decades. While we enjoy high-quality drinking water across the UK, there are, sadly, some streams, rivers and beaches where sewage is discharged with disgusting results, chiefly because our Victorian-era sewerage system cannot cope with a larger population and increasingly volatile weather. We Conservatives recognised that when we entered government in 2010 and started the enormous and decades-long task of turning things around.

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

  More

  I will come on that, and the hon. Gentleman will regret asking that question. I am going to set out our record on water, because it is important that this Government act on the facts rather than believing their own rhetoric—as was demonstrated, sadly, by the shameful betrayal of farming and family businesses in Labour’s Budget of broken promises. Since 2010, the number of designated bathing waters has increased. We have seen a significant improvement in water quality ratings, with more waters rated as “excellent” or “good”, and an increase in blue flag beaches. I gently point out that England performs better than other parts of the UK when it comes to leaks, drinking water quality and bathing water quality. I understand why Labour Members—including the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah), who is no longer in her place—have raised the issue of dividends, but it is an inconvenient fact that over 65% of dividends were paid out during the New Labour Government era, with a decline over the 14 years that we were in government. There is more to be done, which is precisely why we want to help the Government to improve their piece of legislation. It is also why the work of the last decade must be seen as part of this giant infrastructure project. We were the first Government in history to set out that storm overflows must be reduced. To do that, storm overflows had to be monitored and measured. I have to say that I was surprised that the Secretary of State was so dismissive of the need to monitor. As a Home Office Minister, I was painfully aware that we needed to monitor, for example, reports of sexual violence against women, because once it is measured, we can manage it. It is surprising that the Secretary of State does not appear to think that monitoring storm overflows matters. The reason why is that the previous Labour Government monitored just 7% of storm overflows in 2010. He cannot say that there are more overflows than ever before, because the previous Labour Government did not measure them. The fact that we increased monitoring to 100% of storm overflows means that we know the frequency and have been able to build a body of work on top of that. [ Interruption. ] He asks what we have done as a result, and I am very happy to help him with that. The data has empowered enraged residents to demand that their local streams, rivers and beaches be cleaned up. It is a critical part of the decades-long work on our water systems that is required, but we were not content with maximising monitoring. The data must be used—

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

  More

  Particularly as the hon. Gentleman was talking about effluent, which is not respectful. I know that he is capable of much greater advocacy than that. I am afraid that I will take no lessons from the Reform party, as he encourages, although I understand that Labour may face some threats from that party in the Welsh Senedd elections—but I digress. We made it clear that the water industry must prioritise action to improve the environment, including protecting priority habitats such as chalk streams. I have the good fortune to have chalk streams in my constituency; they have carved their way through Lincolnshire’s wolds for the last 10,000 years. The dedicated chalk streams fund, announced by the Conservatives in 2022, has been put to good use in Lincolnshire. Will the Minister for Water and Flooding, whom I welcome to her place, confirm in her wind-up that the protection schemes for chalk streams will continue? Following the pandemic, we launched our plan for water, which integrates water and food planning, tackles all sources of pollution and gives the Environment Agency the power to issue bigger penalties to water companies. We banned microbeads in rinse-off personal care products, reduced plastic bag usage by 95% and banned wet wipes containing plastic, which is a huge source of water pollution. I understand why the Labour Government highlight the bonuses that water company bosses have received. Again, I gently point out to the Secretary of State—perhaps he has not done his homework—that the Environment Act 2021, which his Back Benchers do not seem to have read, gave regulators the power to ban water bosses from receiving bonuses if companies have committed serious criminal breaches. [ Interruption. ] Labour Members ask whether the regulators used it. They are independent, and it is for the regulators to justify why they have not used that power under the legislation that is available.