Pet Abduction Bill

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. People who steal, or abduct, pets are despicable, and I am delighted that the legislation that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) has taken up, with the support of the Government, will make it far more straightforward to put the people who do this in jail, because that is what they deserve.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her good fortune in gaining her place in the ballot, and commend her for her wisdom in choosing this particular Bill. As she will know, the legislation was originally in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, and I am also delighted that she and the Government are honouring the commitment to legislate for these elements. I am confident that the Bill will fly through the House, although I am sure that both the Government and my hon. Friend will be listening to what is said about some of the finer points.

During the time when the kept animals Bill was paused, there was a significant public outcry about what should be done in respect of cats. As my hon. Friend put it so articulately in her speech, there is a slight difference between the natural instinctive attributes of different pets, but I am pleased that Government lawyers and DEFRA officials have worked hard to establish how cats can be included in the Bill.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) mentioned the taskforce. People may not realise this, but for a conviction for theft there is quite a high bar to prove that someone has been permanently deprived of a particular item. That is especially true of a living item. I am pleased that we are taking this forward. The offence of pet abduction, and the potential criminal sentence of up to five years’ imprisonment, will provide an effective deterrent.

There has been discussion about a number of different police forces. I commend Suffolk police. There has been a significant increase in pet theft in the last few years, as people seek to steal much-valued pets that can be sold. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald)—he is not in his place, but I am sure he will be back—was right to mention the impact of organised crime. It is perhaps not on the scale of national organised crime, but certainly local crime gangs are taking pets and then transporting them right around the country. I pay tribute to Sussex police, who found Willow, a dog that had been stolen in Suffolk, eight months later in Surrey—thanks to their activities, she was reunited with her owner.

People have talked about the Westminster dog show and others. My beloved Rizzo finally got a “highly commended” award in the Westminster dog of the year show a few years ago—just for perseverance, I think; she was old and blind. Sadly, she passed away not long after. We know—that is why we are here—that the British people care extensively about the value of their pets. That is why I think it wise to add to the legislation a power to react, through regulation, to what is happening with criminal gangs, giving us the opportunity to have more pets later. The precise details of the issues that hon. Members have raised may need further consideration.

I am glad that this consideration has been given to the issue. I recall a stray dog in the village where I used to live in Hampshire. It was just wandering around, and we took it in. Like a responsible person, I wanted to find out where the dog had come from. I made an initial inquiry at the village shop, but they did not know, and I then went to the vet. I was a bit surprised when the vet said that they were not allowed to tell me who the owner was. I understand in a wider sense, but I found it rather frustrating that I was limited in how I could connect with the owner to reunite them with their pet—I was not even allowed to know whether the dog was registered to somebody in my village. An officer from the council came and took the dog.

I wish that I had known the full details of section 150 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, under which I could have kept the dog—at the time, I was told, “Absolutely not.” I was concerned, of course, that if the owner was not found after seven days, the dog could be euthanised. I felt that I could probably have had more effect. In that regard—having now read the legislation in detail as a Member of Parliament—I would probably have wanted to hold on to the dog, perhaps for 24 hours, just to take it to the pub or whatever. It turned out that somebody at the pub that night had lost their dog, and I was able to refer them and they were reunited the following morning. I am grateful that the Bill considers the genuine kindness of people who want to try to reunite dogs with their owners.

I have given notice to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and the Government that I will table one amendment. I want to change the commencement date in clause 6(1). At the moment, the Bill relies on more regulations coming through to bring it into effect. I understand that officials might want time to get guidance and so on, but I do not think that necessary. I strongly recommend that my hon. Friend changes that in Committee—I do not want to wait until Report to change it—and that some deal be done, whether for two or three months. That would be perfectly reasonable in order to ensure that once we have passed the Bill, it is passed in the Lords without many amendments.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that issue. Of course, the normal convention is that the Bill would come into force two months after Royal Assent, which is a reasonable period of time. We could delete that clause or add something to allow a slightly longer period, but she makes a powerful point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

My right hon. and learned Friend, having been a recorder and Solicitor General, is well established in the operation of the law, and I agree. Why not make it two months after Royal Assent?

I strongly support the Bill. I appreciate that there have been many private Members’ Bills that latch on to an issue without really changing the law, on which there might have been questions today. There is no doubt that the change from “permanent deprivation” to “abduction” makes this a powerful Bill, and I look forward to it becoming law before the summer.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call George Freeman.

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill  

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak on Third Reading. It was important, when the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill was set aside, that a commitment was made to bring legislation forward, and this is a key element of it. It is a key element of our manifesto commitment that we will fulfil, and frankly the other House should stop bleating about this element. We will get the other aspects done. I myself am taking a private Member’s Bill through that covers one elements of the kept animals Bill. We should not be playing tit for tat on this. It is about something that really matters, the welfare of animals, and this is a really important stage.

The Minister has read out a litany of what we have achieved in our time in office. The one person who cannot speak in this debate is my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), who took through the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 with the support of the Government. As the chief executive of the RSPCA said, that was a monumental moment for animal welfare legislation, empowering the courts to hand out sentences that more accurately reflect the seriousness of these crimes.

I strongly support the Bill. I say to the House, and to the other House, that it is a simple, straightforward Bill and it could get through by the end of March and be done by Easter, without question. This is not the moment to add other elements left, right and centre. Let us keep it simple and keep our manifesto commitments. I hope the House of Lords respects the will of this House, and I look forward to the Bill not coming back but becoming an Act before the end of the spring.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the SNP spokesman.

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 18th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

It is a huge pleasure to speak in the debate. We have been waiting for this Bill, which was one of our manifesto commitments, but we had not left the European Union back in 2016 so we had to wait until such time as we could take a decision. As soon as we could make a commitment, we made the decision to introduce the Bill.

The way the Opposition have tried to present themselves on aspects of animal welfare has been somewhat suspect. Indeed, earlier this year, the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer) shared the reasons why the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill could not be taken forward. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) at the debate, as well as other right hon. and hon. Friends. For the record in Hansard, there is not a single Labour Back Bencher on the Opposition Benches—the one who was there, the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), has just walked out of the Chamber—but meanwhile there are 15 to 20 Members on the Government Benches.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

While the Labour party talks a good game on animal welfare, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the Conservatives who are significantly improving protections for animals and our much-loved pets?

[Dr Coffey]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. However, I do think that we should be open about this. Animal welfare should not be a matter for competition, as some try to suggest. We are a nation of animal lovers. That is why there will be strong support for this Bill. We should not try to play each other off, suggesting that one side cares more than the other. Of course, conservation is very much in the DNA of our Conservative party, and that is why I am delighted to be supporting the Bill today.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Let me try to take the partisan element out of this. Our great friend Sir David Amess, who was a Conservative MP and a patron of the excellent Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, was also very skilled at working across parties to achieve objectives, and he was passionate about this cause. Does my right hon. Friend, the former Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, agree that it would be a great tribute to him if all of us, in all parts of this House, could pass this very important Bill into law?

[Dr Coffey]

Of course I agree with my right hon. Friend. Indeed, I am standing in front of the shield of my former hon. Friend, a conscious reminder of the sacrifice that he paid for being a Member of this House. He will be known forever for his passion for animal welfare, and I am delighted that, as well as his closest friends, his successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth), has continued that journey.

The Bill is straightforward; it does what it says on the tin. That is the right approach. I wish that other parts of the European Union would agree to this. I am delighted that this legislation is one of the Brexit bonuses. It will be the second piece of primary legislation that DEFRA has introduced—the first being the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023. I know that there is more to do, and I know that there are plenty of speakers who wish to speak today, but let us think carefully about how we can accelerate this Bill so that it gets through the next stage in one day—I believe that business has been tabled for the first week back—so that we can make sure that this legislation comes into effect as quickly as possible. That is good for the welfare of animals and good for our reputation around the world. It will show the leadership that we can bring and make sure that we continue to be strong in what we are doing while still recognising the ongoing animal welfare reforms that this Conservative Government have already put in place, and I know that there will be many more to come.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

Rural Communities: Government Support

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 28th November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) on securing this debate.

The United Kingdom boasts a rich tapestry of rural communities, each with its unique charm, heritage and challenges. Over the years the UK Government have strongly recognised the significance of these communities and have implemented various measures to support their growth, sustainability and resilience.

Earlier this year, when I was the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I wrote the foreword for, and indeed owned the whole document called “Unleashing rural opportunity”, in which we set out really important ways to ensure that our rural communities thrive. Whether it was about investing in the rural economy, removing barriers to enterprise or improving connections, we have already seen significant improvements in digital connection, and under Project Gigabit we will go even further.

There have also been connections on transport. I recognise what the hon. Lady said in that regard. Particularly in some rural areas, the sparsity of communities is challenging when it comes to providing a consistent public transport service. However, I hope that she welcomed the £2 bus fare cap, which I know has significantly improved the use of bus services in Suffolk. There has also been other support, which can often go towards things such as community volunteer transport or transport on demand, which, to be candid, I think is still going to be the most likely way to have an on-demand service for most of our very rural communities.

I also believe that there is more that we need to do on aspects of affordable housing and on aspects of energy. A decade ago, I was strongly involved in the fuel poverty challenge for properties off the gas grid. In fact, the Government changed the law under the Digital Economy Act 2017, a change that I helped to secure. That was to allow the opportunity to get information that the Government had but which was collected with certain powers that restricted its use, in order to open up that information to energy companies, so that they were able to go and identify the communities, or people in the community, who were off the gas grid, to try to help with the energy company obligation support. However, it was not unique to people who were off the gas grid.

I believe that it is that sort of thing where we probably need to put some more momentum behind what the energy companies are actually doing to be able to distribute that sort of support. It is there, but too often quite a lot of the money still goes, as I think the National Energy Association has said, into trying to identify people who might be eligible for support rather than going into delivering the solutions. I think the willingness is there. Now that I am back on the Back Benches, I perhaps have the opportunity to say that we should get that sort of connectivity going again and challenge things in that regard.

Regarding connectivity more broadly, enhanced connectivity lies at the heart of empowering rural areas, and I think that the UK Government have been dedicated to bridging the digital divide, ensuring that even the remotest villages have access to high-speed internet. The rural gigabit connectivity programme aims to deliver lightning-fast broadband to over 1 million homes and businesses in rural areas. That will bring economic opportunities and facilitate remote working, online education and, I hope, online healthcare, so that instead of having to travel long distances to get specialist care, people in rural areas might be able to receive such care online.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Before the right hon. Member gives way, may I just say something to her? I am sorry, but I forgot to ask her if she could sit down at 4.48 pm, so that I can get the other speakers in.

[Dr Coffey]

Yes, of course.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

And I will just repeat that the motion is:

“That this House has considered Government support for rural communities”,

because I am failing miserably in the Chair. Sorry. [Laughter.]

[Dr Evans]

Sir Charles, your failure is met by enthusiasm and has been offset as a result.

I thank my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for the point she is making. On digital connectivity, the percentage of my constituency of Bosworth with 1 gigabit has increased from 0.1% to 67%. This kind of thing gives huge opportunity to businesses and folk in my community. Is that not exactly the kind of thing that the Government want to do, in order to unlock opportunities for businesses, so that they can create new reasons for people to be in a rural constituency, apart from the beautiful countryside?

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. About a decade ago our ambition was to get to 10 megabits as the universal service obligation. We have much greater ambition that that now. Of course it is about delivery, and quite a lot of legislation in the past few years has been about unblocking some of the barriers to making delivery happen, but it is good that the process is under way.

However, I share the concerns about mobile phones. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) has undertaken an assessment, and will be working with DEFRA and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. Ofcom needs to look again when it says an area is covered for mobile phones. All of us have examples from our constituencies of that not being the case. It is particularly distressing when I think about the removal of copper-line communications that is due to happen this decade and the impact that could have if Ofcom is working off not totally reliable communication points.

[Helen Morgan]

The shared rural network is obviously designed to address that issue, but in many cases the equipment that providers have is not shared by other providers. Does the right hon. Member agree that either the equipment needs to be shared by all the main mobile providers or there needs to be rural roaming?

[Dr Coffey]

That is a good point. I do not know enough about the detail of what the hon. Lady suggests, but I know there are two sets of providers because they already share connection masts, but I appreciate that is not totally comprehensive.

I want to say a bit more about the importance of farming to our countryside and in our rural communities. Over the past year, I have made a lot of effort to try to ensure that that is recognised and that farmers are seen as the custodians of the countryside. Perhaps that speech will have to wait for another time, given the variety of issues that rural affairs covers, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome set out extensively.

One of the things that will continue to be of interest to me is school transport. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) has a debate tomorrow on funding for rural councils. There is no doubt that young people miss some opportunities because they cannot necessarily get to their college, which is a long distance away. More broadly, hon. Members who represent urban constituencies may not understand that children leave home very early in the morning, have quite long days--although those days seem to get shorter—and often may miss out on the regular opportunities that others have for sports, debate and similar.

[Keir Mather (Selby and Ainsty) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Dr Coffey]

I am afraid that I just do not have the time, but I am sure the hon. Member will be making a speech soon.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

You can have an extra minute, Dr Coffey. You do not have to give way, but I will give you till 4.49 pm.

[Dr Coffey]

Then I will take the intervention.

[Keir Mather]

The right hon. Lady is extremely kind for giving way, and I apologise for missing the opening remarks by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke). I want to build on the point about transport, because there are massive issues in my constituency for transport for children with special educational needs. Children have to go from Selby up to Harrogate or Scarborough to receive the education they need. Does the right hon. Lady agree that we need more funding and investment to transport those children who need that extra help in a way that better respects the fact that they are getting up very early in the morning and not enjoying school in the way that other young people are able to?

[Dr Coffey]

I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. The situation varies around the country, but I know it is a challenge that councils have. We could actually have an all-day debate in the Chamber or in here to discuss the plethora of issues covered by the brief held by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore), whom I welcome to his well-deserved ministerial role. Being from a rural Yorkshire constituency, he will know a lot of the challenges that are faced, but he will also know of the opportunities and what a special place it is.

In terms of Government support, we need to keep that funding going for post offices, and we need ongoing investment in rural access programmes, whether that is for health or the internet. I commend the Government for the progress they have made. Of course, I would say that because a couple of weeks ago I was in charge of the Department doing it, but I assure the House that there is a genuine passion there. We need to ensure that the rural proofing that operates right across Government is still done and gets the scrutiny it deserves.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Legislation on Dangerous Dogs

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. As the Secretary of State who introduced this legislation—in fact, it was my last act in Government—I thought it appropriate to contribute to today’s debate.

The debate surrounding the ban on XL bully dogs under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is itself a complex issue that evokes strong emotions. I understand that very much, and the approach taken was carefully considered. I was also aware before your earlier ruling, Dame Caroline, that there are potential legal challenges against the Government, so I need to be measured and not reveal all the information that we considered during this time.

I have had three rescue dogs, and my mother and sister have another rescue dog at the moment. There is no doubt that an adorable pet brings a lot to people’s lives and hearts. I am also very conscious of the challenges faced by those people who have suffered from dog attacks, whether it be against their children, themselves, or indeed their own pets. They obviously can be very distressed by that.

In reality, there was no knee-jerk reaction; there were simply too many attacks happening, and the proportion of attacks by XL bully-type dogs was considerably higher than others. Yes, I am sure we have all read about how other dogs—whether a collie, Jack Russell or potentially a rottweiler—have also been involved in many attacks. The issue is about the proportion and seriousness of the attacks, and indeed about how they can be stopped—that is pretty difficult. It is about the fatalities as well.

The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) talked about how we define a breed, and some of the point is that this breed is not defined. I pay tribute to the chief veterinary officer and the many officials who have been involved extensively in this sensitive matter, working with animal welfare experts and experts from the police and, indeed, local councils, who will have to undertake a lot of this work. I want to assure the House that a lot of care has been taken over this approach, and that is also why a lot of this will be through guidance and there will be individual decisions.

I come back to the fact that, of course, many of these dogs are pets. They are not necessarily status symbols, but we know that they have been used for that. We see a lot of that in how the ears of these dogs have been cropped to give them a more aggressive feel and appearance, despite the fact that that is already illegal under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It is not illegal to import the dogs, but we are talking about an extensive element where that is the case. Since the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, there have been some amendments along the way, partly driven through case law. That was back in ’97, and there were further regulations in 2015, but there was a specific reason for that. I suggest that the extent of the attacks is the reason why the XL bully is the first breed to have been added to section 1 since 1991.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is an esteemed legislator of great repute. Does she agree therefore that in this Parliament we cannot legislate with imprecision? That is exactly what the statutory instrument does. It talks about “characteristics”, which it says may or may not be necessary for the definition. Surely we need to make the law clear beyond peradventure so that the people of this country know which side of the law they are on.

[Dr Coffey]

I would say to my hon. Friend that the guidance is as clear as it can be. It gives a number of physical characteristics, and I am sure the Minister will say more about that and the process being gone through. I suppose that in introducing the legislation, I very much wanted to put across that the issue is not being considered lightly and that a lot of care and attention has been given to the detail.

I must admit that I have had several death threats about this legislation and I am conscious that it is driving those strong emotions. What I will say is that the Government took an approach that would allow time for people to rehome an XL bully-type dog if they felt they could not keep it. Also, the situation is very different from what has happened recently, when people have had a pit bull or similar: owners can still apply to get a certificate and join the index of exempt dogs. The default here is that every person who registers their XL bully-type dog will get a certificate automatically and will automatically join the index. That is a significant difference, even though I am conscious it will cost some money to do that.

[Dr Evans]

I am grateful to the former Secretary of State, and the point she is making should be considered. From 31 December, breeding, selling, advertising, gifting and abandoning XL bully dogs will be illegal, but there is also the issue of rehoming. A Sky report over the weekend said that 246 of these dogs are waiting to be rehomed. I had a constituent stop me on the high street who wanted to rehome one of these dogs but was struggling to get the information on how to go about doing that. I am slightly concerned because rehoming is one way of saving these dogs by ensuring they get support from a responsible owner who will take on a licence. Could a carve-out for rehoming be considered, so that it is pushed back to 1 February in line with the rest of the exemptions coming in?

[Dr Coffey]

I am not in Government anymore, so that is a question for the Minister. I think that was done to bring to an end the opportunity for the transfer of dogs. It is admittedly on a rapid timescale, but we must remember the reason why we are taking this approach at all: to try to stop attacks. People read about attacks every week, and they are happening around the country. Somebody may absolutely want to help a dog by rehoming it, but they need a certain amount of training to look after such a strong animal.

If we think about an adult XL bully dog, we are talking about something that weighs about 70 kg. These are big dogs. They really have a lot of strength and, frankly, the only way to unlock their jaws once they latch on to somebody is basically to choke them. Do not kick them in the head or anything like that—that will only make them grab on even tighter. That is what we are dealing with. Sadly, some of these dogs do get out of control and it is their characteristics that lead them to have that physical strength. Also, we must not get away from the fact that they were originally parts of various bits of pit bulls, mastiffs and similar.

It is, of course, understandable why people who have their XL bully dog next to their children every night, with the dog probably licking the children to death—if that makes sense—think it will protect them. But there is the risk and the results of that risk are happening too often.

I am not planning to linger in this debate; I will just say briefly why I think this an effective piece of legislation. I am very conscious of the reviews that have happened and how different Select Committees have called for more extensive action. I am also very aware that the Dogs Trust, the RSPCA and similar charities do not think the legislation effective. However, the reality is that the number of attacks by pit bulls basically went away when this legislation was put into place. The muzzling and the different licence approach are things that we need to happen as quickly as possible for the existing XL bully dogs in this country.

As for alternatives, there has been a lot of talk about licensing. Well, licensing to own a dog was scrapped a long time ago. I do not think that councils would welcome having to take on the whole licensing of dogs right across the country. Of course there has to be enforcement on breeding and disreputable practices. In section 3 of the 1991 Act, there is a wider approach for all dogs; any dog can be dangerous. So far, however, five specific dogs have been singled out, because of their characteristics.

I am very conscious that the job of politicians is to make law. I appreciate that one of my hon. Friends does not think this law is necessarily the right way. But this is what we do—one day something can be legal and the next day it can be illegal. We do these things because we believe they are the right thing to do.

It is of course open to Members to pray against this statutory instrument, but I really hope that does not happen because it is important that people get certainty and can take positive action. As I say, anybody who has an XL bully dog right now will be granted the certificate to join the index of exempt dogs. In effect, that will be automatic, as long as the conditions are complied with and they can say so on that register.

I am conscious that many people want to speak today. In conclusion, people must have time to rehome and everybody who loves their XL bully should be able to keep it. I commend the legislation, which is still passing through the House.

Simpler Recycling and Wider Waste Reforms

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Monday 23rd October 2023 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

Simpler recycling will help us all recycle more easily, doing our bit to help save the planet and make the best use of precious resources that we use every day.

On Saturday 21 October, we published the Government response to the “Simpler Recycling” consultation—formerly known as “Consistency in Household and Business Recycling in England”.

These new waste reforms make it easier for households and businesses to recycle by introducing a simpler approach to waste collections. This common-sense approach means an end to the postcode lottery so, for the first time, people across England will be able to recycle the same materials, as well as get weekly food waste collections. Whatever product you buy with the recycling logo, and all your food you do not use, you will be able to recycle it at home—wherever you live.

In line with the Environment Act 2021, we are requiring all councils to collect seven different types of waste from your doorstep to be recycled—glass, metal, plastic, paper and card, garden and food waste. We will also require councils to collect other residual waste at least fortnightly.

That does not mean households need seven bins though. The areas with the highest recycling rates use just three bins or boxes for every home to collect this already. If it works for those parts of the country, the Government think that this approach can be undertaken by all councils. To that end, we will be legislating in early 2024 to enable that. It will still be for councils to decide how many bins or boxes they offer households. We have listened to councils and households and as part of the simpler recycling policy, local authorities will have the flexibility to design and implement the reforms that works for their geographical areas and citizens.

We will also bring in stricter laws for those who manage and transport waste in England, and introduce mandatory digital waste tracking across the UK—taking on the dodgy dealers, rogue operators and fly-tipping cowboy criminals who blight our countryside and cost our economy £1 billion every year.

Alongside “Simpler Recycling”, we are also cracking down on waste crime to prevent illegal waste from blighting our communities and damaging the environment. Across England, we will be bringing in stricter regulations for those who manage and transport waste—carriers, brokers and dealers—as well as introducing mandatory digital waste tracking across the UK, using powers in the Environment Act to overhaul existing waste record keeping.

As set out in our landmark resources and waste strategy, we will go further and faster to reduce, reuse, and recycle more of our waste and resources, helping to leave the environment in a better state than we found it for future generations.

Together these measures will help us to achieve our 25-year environment plan commitment to eliminate avoidable waste by 2050, our Environment Act target to halve the amount of residual waste we produce per person by 2042, and our recycling ambition of recycling 65% of municipal waste by 2035.

“Simpler Recycling” will significantly contribute to the net zero strategy commitment to

“explore options for the near elimination of biodegradable municipal waste to landfill from 2028.”

This policy will be the main contributor to reducing residual municipal food waste per capita by the equivalent of 50% from 2019 levels, set out in the environmental improvement plan (EIP).

The Government remain committed to delivering the environmental benefits of their resources and waste package of reforms.

[HCWS1085]

Oral Answers to Questions

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 19th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

2. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on introducing the proposed ban on American Bully XL dogs.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

The Prime Minister made a decision about introducing the proposed ban on American XL Bully dogs, recognising the horrific consequences of recent dog attacks and the disproportionate amount of those being undertaken by such dogs. We are working at pace on the legislation, and importantly on how it will be put into practice, and I hope to say more on that soon.

[Dr Hudson]

I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. As a veterinary surgeon, I strongly agree with the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State that we need to ban the dangerous American XL Bully dog as soon as possible to keep people and other animals safe. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in parallel to this necessary urgent action, we need to undertake important work with the public on responsible dog breeding, responsible dog ownership and better training and socialising of dogs as part of a holistic, long-term solution to dog attacks?

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend has great credibility in this field, given his professional experience as a vet. I understand that many owners of XL Bully dogs are passionate about their animals—their pets. That is why we are working at pace, but taking our time to get right the definitions and the transition period that we anticipate. It is important that all dog owners work to make sure that their dogs behave and have appropriate training. That is why we established a taskforce that includes dog welfare charities. We expect it to respond to us by the end of the year, and we will potentially take forward some of its recommendations.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As someone who has had a pet dog all my life and still does, I am conscious that some of those who own American XL Bully dogs think that their dogs are integral and safe, but many in the general public see them as a danger and have fear. Is the Secretary of State’s intention, as this process goes forward in Westminster, to engage with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the police, in particular, to ensure that the law and the recommendations that come out of this place can be shared with them?

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Gentleman is right to recognise owners’ concerns where they believe that they have very good dogs. That is to some extent accommodated already in the legislation that has evolved since 1991. On working with other nations, the law—the primary legislation—will apply in both England and Wales by default, but we are working with the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Administration on potential moves to make this a UK-wide approach.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

I listened carefully to the answers the Secretary of State gave to both hon. Members, but I am still not reassured that she has the planned legislation in place to ban XL Bully dogs effectively. Is she satisfied that we have the kennel space across the UK, enough vets to make assessments, and clear rules and legislation in place to make the ban effective?

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Lady asks a fair question. The legislation has evolved since 1991, with amendments made to the primary legislation in 1997 and in the Dangerous Dogs Exemption Schemes (England and Wales) Order 2015. In that, there is a combination of work with the police in particular and with local councils and, of course, the judicial system. We have been working closely with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire to take the matter forward. I want to ensure that the legislation is right. I am expecting to present two statutory instruments to make it effective, with one bringing the ban into effect and the other providing the transition element and some of the finer details that still need to be completed.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

3. Whether she plans to publish a new timeline for key milestones on (a) extended producer responsibility for packaging and (b) other measures in the 2018 resources and waste strategy for England.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

The Met Office has issued various warnings. Indeed, as the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), pointed out, we are preparing for potentially significant storms, which is why the Environment Agency has mobilised its emergency operations centre and why temporary defences are being lined up in different parts of the country. We continue to encourage households to register for flood alerts and warnings and to take action, where appropriate.

[Mr Hollobone]

Ball Corporation has invested £200 million to create Europe’s largest and most modern aluminium drinks can manufacturing plant in Burton Latimer. Will the Secretary of State be kind enough to meet the company to explore her plans to support drinks can producers against potentially unfair market distortions as a result of the decision to exclude glass from the deposit return scheme?

[Dr Coffey]

I decided not to proceed with glass in the DRS because of the complications that would bring to its introduction; I would have thought his local company would benefit from that. However, I know that the chief executive recently had a constructive and useful meeting with the recycling Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who will take away the comments from that for further consideration as we finalise our policy.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

T2. I have received a host of emails from constituents, many with respiratory problems, who are rightly complaining about poor air quality. The smoke in the air was caused by heather burning on the moors, which resulted in a spike in poor air quality to levels that were four times the legal limit. Will the Government finally do the right thing and bring in an outright ban on these practices, which are affecting not only my constituents’ health, but the natural environment and the climate?

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Lady will be aware of the action that has been taken—that Ministers required Sheffield City Council to take—to accelerate measures to improve air quality. On the wider measures that she talks about, we are not seeking to ban important practices, but of course things continue to evolve. Air quality is improving and she should be grateful not only to her local councils but to the Government for making that happen in her constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

As the Secretary of State knows, my constituency is chalk stream central, with the headwaters of the celebrated River Test, the Bourne rivulet and the River Anton, which runs through Andover. What can the Government tell me to reassure my constituents that the unique ecology of chalk streams is uppermost in their mind as they work to enhance our rivers across the country?

[Dr Coffey]

As my right hon. Friend knows, I know that area well. I used to live in Whitchurch, which has the River Test flowing through it. We are making progress with our chalk stream action plan, but he will also be aware of the amendment that the Government agreed to work with Viscount Trenchard on and which is now part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which I hope will become an Act very soon.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

Some of the finest seed potatoes are grown in the north of Scotland. Right now, the seed potato farmers are worried sick, because a lot of their crop is below water. That also poses a question mark over the supply of seed for next year. I know that this matter is devolved, but as the Minister is a farmer will he put the maximum encouragement in the direction of the Scottish Government to please help the farmers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

Publicly owned Scottish Water has invested £668 million since 2010 in improvements and committed another half a billion pounds between 2021 and 2027. That is why Scottish Water has had its product—the waters around Scotland—classified as being in “good ecological condition”. Why do English bill payers pay the most and get the mankiest water?

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. There is a lot of chatter about water; we should never undermine the cleanliness of the drinking water that people enjoy. The interministerial group is working on different ways of measuring ecological status across the United Kingdom and we are looking to see what we might do about that. We made the change in 2016, which other parts of the United Kingdom did not, and we continue to work together as responsible Governments. I remind the hon. Gentleman, only 4% of storm overflows in Scotland are monitored—they would be better off getting on with that.

The Attorney General was asked—

Support for Farming

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

This Government are committed to backing British farmers, who produce some of the highest quality food in the world, contribute billions to our economy and are the custodians of our countryside.

We plan to replace the basic payment scheme in England with delinked payments in 2024, making things much simpler for both farmers and the Rural Payments Agency—building on the simplifications we have already made to existing schemes. Delinking will free up farmers to focus on running their business and delivering the public goods that can be rewarded under the environmental land management schemes.

On 18 September we opened the sustainable farming incentive 2023 (SFI) to applications. As of 12 October, we have received over 14,000 expressions of interest—equivalent to more than one in eight farmers—with the first groups of farmers already implementing their SFI agreements, and many more due to start in the coming days and weeks.

We have also seen farmers continue to show their interest in other environmental land management schemes, such as landscape recovery, where we have received a significant number of high-quality applications that are now being carefully considered. With 7,881 mid-tier and 1,030 higher-tier countryside stewardship applications in this year’s round, we have also seen sustained interest in the countryside stewardship offer, following a two-week extension of the application window in response to a challenging harvest. There are now over 33,000 countryside stewardship agreements in place across England in September 2023—a 94% increase since 2020. We are now spending £688 million on rewarding farmers for environmental, climate and animal welfare outcomes this financial year, as part of the wider £2.4 billion that we are committed to spend supporting farmers every year of this Parliament.

To ensure that farmers are treated fairly, we are developing new legislation to improve supply chain fairness in the dairy and pig sectors, with further reviews into fairness in egg and horticulture supply chains due to launch in October and December respectively. To support long-term decision making, the Government also intend to publish their response to the independent review into labour shortages in the food supply chain later this autumn, as planned.

The Government are also committed to supporting farmers to realise their contribution to the rural economy. Together with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, we will shortly publish a review of permitted development rights on farms. We are working to grant funding for farmers to invest in the productivity of their businesses and, for the first time, barn-top solar by the end of this year.

We recognise both the pressures facing smaller abattoirs and the opportunities available to them, so we will be launching a smaller abattoir fund by the end of 2023, providing financing for capital investments to support productivity, improved animal welfare and adding value to primary products.

To continue our progress, we will maintain engagement with the agricultural sector and provide practical opportunities for farmers that maintain our food security and also deliver on our environmental ambitions.

[HCWS1061]

Global Biodiversity Framework and Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

Last December, the world came together at the convention of biodiversity in Montreal, Canada, to agree the global biodiversity framework, with a priority objective to halt and reverse nature loss globally by 2030. Key to securing the agreement was the commitment to establish a GBF fund to be administered by the Global Environment Facility particularly to help the Global South in achieving this objective.

The United Kingdom announced that it would provide £10 million to the GBF fund during the GEF assembly in August, adding to the Canadian Government commitment. I am delighted that Germany became the third country to commit to this new fund during the UN General Assembly. As a consequence, the fund can now be operationalised and I expect the GEF to start funding projects next year.

Other significant progress was made on GBF implementation and our blue planet fund and ocean objectives during UN General Assembly and New York climate week. This included: the UK signing the ocean conservation pledge, building on our existing commitments to protect at least 30% of our own marine area by 2030; and announcements of funding for some key initiatives including £120,000 in funding to Plymouth Marine Laboratory, as the secretariat for the Ocean Acidification Research for Sustainability (OARS) programme and £2.5 million to tackle illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing by funding the Joint Analytical Cell, which provides much-needed intelligence for countries around the world on protecting fisheries. We have also welcomed Costa Rica, Panama and Peru to the Global Plastic Action Partnership to reduce plastic pollution, particularly in the marine environment.

Working with countries around the world is vital in making progress on the GBF. That is particularly true of working with the Commonwealth of Nations. I chaired the first ever meeting of Commonwealth Environment and Climate Ministers, alongside its Secretary General, Baroness Scotland, which explored ways to strengthen collaboration to tackle global challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, desertification, ocean degradation and the energy transition.

Key to making progress on GBF implementation is bringing in private finance. Building on our 10-point plan for financing biodiversity, earlier this year we established a global initiative with France on biodiversity credits to accelerate high integrity investment that delivers for nature. At UNGA, the independent co-chairs Dame Amelia Fawcett and Sylvie Goulard of the international advisory panel met panel members in person for the first time and shared the work undertaken so far.

Further to this, the UK has been instrumental in supporting the global, market-led Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures. The TNFD framework has been designed by 40 private sector institutions representing over $20 trillion of assets under management. The aim of the TNFD is to generate decision-grade natural capital reporting data that can facilitate the alignment of global financial flows in support of improving nature. The panel launched its recommendations on 18 September at the New York stock exchange and again in London on 25 September. The UK Government have been instrumental in providing catalytic funding and political support to the TNFD since 2019. I welcome the commitment from GSK to use this framework from 2025 and hope that many more companies and institutions will start. Now that the recommendations have been launched, the UK Government will explore how best to incorporate it into UK policy in a manner that is coherent with global sustainability reporting in general, and nature themed standards development in particular.

[HCWS1064]

Water Companies

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

The price review is an independent, five-yearly process run by the economic regulator, Ofwat, to determine investment plans for water companies and customer bills over the next five years—in this case, from 2025 to 2030. This will include assessing future investment in enhancing the resilience of our water supplies, environmental improvements and customer support.

Following Ofwat’s timeline, I can inform the House that by Monday 2 October all water companies had submitted draft business plans for the 2024 price review (PR24) and published them on their websites.

The draft water company business plans submitted are the opening position in an independent regulatory process stretching to the end of 2024. I expect Ofwat and the Environment Agency now to look closely at the plans and ensure that they meet legal requirements and give customers the best value for their money. We do not allow water companies to charge consumers twice for investment that should already have happened, and through the PR24 process Ofwat will scrutinise business plans to ensure this does not occur.

Following this scrutiny process, Ofwat’s decision on total investment and consumer bills will be finalised in December 2024.

This builds on Ofwat’s announcement on 26 September that, following its assessment of water company performance against targets set for 2022-23, under-performance by the majority of companies means £114 million will be returned to customers next year.

I am also taking this opportunity to update the House on recent developments pertaining to the Government’s actions to reduce discharges from storm overflows.

On Friday 15 September the High Court ruled in favour of the Government’s storm overflows discharge reduction plan, following challenges brought by WildFish and others. All claims were dismissed, meaning the Government won on all grounds considered by the High Court. The judgment supports the Government’s position that the targets under the Government’s plan goes substantially further than existing legislation to tackle the use of storm overflows.

The Government welcome the High Court’s decision and have always been clear that we will go further and faster to tackle the issue of storm overflows wherever possible.

That is why on Monday 25 September, following consultation, the Government published an expanded “Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan”, extending the targets of the plan to coastal and estuarine storm overflows. We have also expanded the list of storm overflows that are prioritised for early improvement, to include both marine protected areas and shellfish water protected areas.

The targets outlined in the expanded storm overflows discharge reduction plan provide an achievable, credible route to tackling sewage and delivering the improvements that customers expect without disproportionately impacting consumer bills.

Furthermore, recognising public calls for action to tackle plastic pollution in waterways, on Saturday 14 October the Government also launched a public consultation on a proposed ban of wet wipes containing plastic. This will help tackle wet wipes containing plastic breaking down into microplastics over time, which can be harmful to the environment and human health. The consultation delivers on DEFRA’s commitments set out in our “Plan for Water”.

[HCWS1063]