Flood Prevention: Sleaford and North Hykeham

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Friday 13th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Before I start my remarks, I will make a declaration of interest: my husband is a farmer, and we have a small stipend to pay to the internal drainage board in relation to flood risk.

My constituents in Sleaford and North Hykeham enjoy some of the most beautiful countryside that the United Kingdom has to offer. Our hard-working farmers reap the benefits of some of the best agricultural land in the country for their crops. Unfortunately, living in this area brings some environmental risks.

Many Lincolnshire MPs centuries ago held the office of commissioner of sewers in the county. The job sounds unglamorous but was very important, bringing with it responsibility for managing the county’s waterways and drainage and for protecting lives and livelihoods from the risk of flood damage. I am not suggesting that I take on that role myself, but that historical flood risk has only become more acute in recent years. Land usage has intensified, our climate has become more volatile and greater pressures have started to affect our natural resources. Our county has suffered from flooding caused by overwhelmed drainage systems and excessive river levels. The effects on people have magnified too. Some people whose homes were flooded lost not just possessions, but the ability to live in their home for a long period of time; some did not return home for more than a year.

Last week, I had the pleasure of visiting Heighington Millfield primary academy as it formally reopened following significant flood damage last year. The closure had major effects on the children there, who had to be bused to different schools around the county within the trust, and significant measures had to be taken to restore the school. I put on record my thanks to everybody involved in that work. The community really pulled together for those children, and the Department for Education and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs worked very hard together to ensure not just that the school was repaired, but that flood measures were put in place to try to prevent those things happening again.

The school now has flood doors in place so that it can prevent flooding coming in through the doors, and it is having work done over the summer in preparation for the autumn rain to protect the outside environment, which includes bunding around the playing fields and a special garden at the back of the school on higher ground, which will absorb some of the water if the rain overtops the back again. Unfortunately, at the same time that that great work has been going on, new councillors under the direction of Reform have chosen to abolish the county council committee dedicated to managing flood risk. I will have more to say about that later.

In opening this debate, I want to make a simple point. My constituents deserve to live in safety and to go about their work and education without severe disruption from climate events. We need to ensure that we are doing everything we can to protect their lives and livelihoods, and that recommendations are being followed up and maintenance work is being done on time. We also need to make the most of local expertise and experience, and not undo the good work started under the previous Government towards fostering collaboration between agencies and local people.

Many communities across my constituency have been affected by flooding in recent times, and they deserve to have their experiences shared. In North Scarle, for example, residents faced huge disruption in 2024 when heavy rainfall on to already wet ground caused flooding at Mill Dam dyke. The local authority report on the event found that poor maintenance of the local watercourses had contributed to the flooding, as did problems with the surface drainage system.

As I saw when I visited North Scarle in December that year, co-operation among different agencies is key in tackling these kinds of events. Lincolnshire county council is responsible for cleaning gullies and maintaining drainage, while the Environment Agency has responsibility for ongoing maintenance at Mill Dam dyke. Meanwhile, local groups such as Flood Action North Scarle contribute valuable local knowledge and experience.

The EA has upheld its end of the shared responsibilities set out in the flooding report, and has engaged the local community by providing maintenance updates. It spent around £71,000 on maintenance in 2023-24. However, since the spending review published this week revealed a 2.7% cut in the DEFRA budget over the review period, can the Minister assure my constituents that the EA will still have the money to continue maintaining these dykes going forward? And what will the Minister do to ensure transparency from councils? Updates from the EA are relatively easy to access, but Lincolnshire county council’s flooding project website simply lists its own actions following each flood report as “ongoing”. My residents need more clarity than that.

In Sleaford, residents faced similar problems when Field beck was overtopped in October 2023 and drainage systems again became overwhelmed. I welcome the work that the EA has done here too, with the business case for a major capital scheme approved on 2 June. I am pleased about this investment, which is projected to avoid £188 million in economic damage, deliver £74 million in people-related benefits and protect 604 properties from repeat flood damage.

In Leasingham, more work needs to be done. Residents suffered flooding twice in quick succession, including in the school, in October 2023 and January 2024, when agricultural ditches overtopped and Leasingham beck exceeded its capacity. The council’s flood report recommended that the EA and Lincolnshire county council work together to carry out channel condition assessments at Leasingham beck, with the results to be reported back to the Lincolnshire flood risk and water management partnership.

However, the inspections have not yet happened. Worse still, even as reports into historical flooding are calling for closer collaboration, the Reform council is undoing the successful partnerships already established. The Lincolnshire flood and water management scrutiny committee did vital work in bringing together key agencies involved in flood management and prevention: the EA, internal drainage boards, Anglian Water, district councils and other key experts. Three weeks ago, Reform abolished the committee, folding it into the generalist environment committee, which does not have the same specialist remit to cover the most important and complex environmental issue facing the county.

By rejecting the valuable contributions of IDBs, district councils and local experts, Reform councillors are saying that they know better than local people who have tended the land for generations. All the main parties have opposed the committee’s abolition and have seen it for what it is: politicking with people’s livelihoods. If the Government see these reckless actions being wrought on local communities in Sleaford and North Hykeham and elsewhere in Lincolnshire, what can they do to ensure that councils uphold their responsibilities to residents?

Instead of cancelling initiatives, we should be creating new ones. I was encouraged by the excellent work done under the previous Government to advance the water maintenance pilot scheme, which was designed to foster collaboration between farmers and the National Farmers Union, local drainage boards and the EA. The scheme enabled greater co-ordination and common-sense flexibility in the management of waterways—for example, by training local landowners in how to manage watercourses, and then allowing them to carry out their own minor channel clearance and maintenance work for themselves.

The scheme helped to avoid the ludicrous, heartbreaking situation in which local people can see a problem with a local watercourse, are aware it is going to flood their farm, land or their home, and have the equipment and the know-how to do something about it, but the law prevents them from doing so. It is illogical. Public sector co-operation agreements already exist to help streamline those schemes and place participants on a clear legal footing. One of the great local successes under that framework was the 2018 silt dredging of the South Forty-Foot drain, a farmland drainage channel dating from the 17th century, under a PSCA between the Black Sluice drainage board and the EA.

Why have the lessons of those schemes not been applied more widely? Since the last election, the scheme in my own constituency has ground to a halt, and with it have gone the benefits that were already accruing. Will the Minister commit to supporting those schemes and encouraging their wider roll-out? As she looks to her budgets, it is worth recognising that it is much cheaper for the IDB to clear drains and ditches than for the EA to do so, since the EA’s procurement process is so cumbersome that it becomes significantly more expensive. One of the things that frustrates many local people in my constituency is that they could do the job and get it done much quicker. They are waiting, and places are flooding while it is not getting done.

Another thing that the Minister could discuss with the Treasury is that the IDB has been prevented from using red diesel in its pumps. The IDB has told me that the problem is that the pumps are placed in isolated places, and believe it or not, people are stealing the diesel. It is white diesel—it is expensive, so it is worth something—and people are stealing it from the pump, which is putting everyone at risk. The IDB feels that if it were red diesel in those pumps, theft would be much less likely.

Brant Broughton is an area in which a number of houses flooded. We have had a less promising update from the Environment Agency in that respect; it says that it was expecting to receive a model of the river system around the summer of 2025.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)]

indicated assent.

[Dr Johnson]

The Minister is nodding—I do not know whether she has an update on what the Environment Agency means by “the summer”. We were expecting the health plan in the spring, and that has been and gone, so if she could help with that, that would be really great. There is some concern about the overall cost-benefit ratio, given the number of houses. I encourage the Minister to remember that although the people who live in rural areas may live in areas that are less densely populated, they have as much right to a safe environment as anybody who lives in a more densely populated part of the country.

There are more examples of communities in my constituency that have suffered the impacts of flooding and are crying out for a joined-up and proactive approach that will protect them from repeat occurrences in the future. In Washingborough and Timberland, a familiar story happened in recent floods: heavy rain, overwhelmed drainage and excessive water runoff led to communities being left to suffer. While the EA has carried out some channel clearance and vegetation management, flood reports make clear that responsibility falls between central agencies, the county council, landowners, and stakeholders such as Anglian Water. Once again, it is vital that open communication is at the heart of the strategy, and that politically motivated meddling is not allowed to get in the way.

I took the chair of the Environment Agency and the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), to visit the Delph at Washingborough when it was full. It was very clear that the EA’s priority had been to protect the small creatures living in the dyke by not clearing the vegetation out, but of course, once the floods came, those small creatures were no more anyway. It would have been much better for the creatures, the environment, and the wider countryside and the people who live there if those dykes had been cleared properly in the first place. Trees were literally growing in that dyke when we went to see it.

There are two final communities facing specific future threats that I would like to highlight. In Ruskington, residents endured flooding in 2023 and 2024 caused by the overflow of Ruskington beck. I understand that the Environment Agency has been conducting bimonthly maintenance and debris removal, and is investigating a capital programme for defences in Ruskington as part of the next five-year funding period. Any scheme will have to meet economic viability criteria and defined cost-benefit metrics, despite future house building plans that will see more land covered, more people in at-risk areas, and more demand on drainage systems.

As of December 2024, under the Government’s new targets, the central Lincolnshire partnership—of which North Kesteven forms a part—faces a house building target of 1,552 houses per year over the course of this Parliament, an 47% increase on the previous target. Can the Minister assure me that the cost-benefit analyses deciding the fate of future flood defence schemes will take account of the Government’s rampant house building plans, and will account for all the ways in which flooding impacts a community such as Ruskington, from work hours lost to home damage, insurance claims, watercourse repairs and drainage clearance?

Finally, Anwick suffered in the floods of 2023, when the River Slea and its tributaries experienced very high water levels. The EA and Anglian Water have been engaged in positive liaisons to manage risks at the River Slea, Farroway drain and Anwick catchwater, but residents in Anwick contacted me in September 2024 when a sewage processing plant flooded, causing discharge and polluting smells across the area. I met Anglian Water to discuss those constituents’ concerns, but their bigger concerns are now about a biogas digester that may be built immediately next door. In this case too, it is vital that lessons are learned and that we avoid repeating mistakes that will lead to more disruption for local people in the future.

Addressing the risks requires the careful allocation of money. A glance at the most recent funding allocations under the flood and coastal erosion risk management grant in aid scheme shows that many dozens of projects appear in the bidding process but receive no funding. The allocation data for the Upper Witham internal drainage board in my constituency shows 15 intended projects listed for completion between 2023 and 2040, but none has any grant funding at all allocated this year. Lincolnshire county council, meanwhile, is due to receive £103,500 in grant funding over 2025-26 for year one of the property flood resilience project. Two smaller projects will receive a total of £52,500 from non-grant public contributions, but 19 other projects will receive no funding at all.

The Government have made much of the £2.65 billion in funding for flood defences that was announced in February, but as I have said before, governing effectively is about making choices. Can the Government clarify for my constituents how the EA is expected to prioritise its funding among the many equally important projects that need support, especially in light of cuts to the DEFRA budget? How much money is spent on developing schemes that subsequently do not come to fruition? What is the estimated cost—in household damage, lost output and broader economic terms—of deciding not to act?

As I mentioned earlier, the hard-working farmers in my constituency do so much for our local and national economy and for this country’s food security, and it is vital that we remember them. What will become of agricultural productivity in areas left with inadequate flood defences? What will happen to food security when some of our best-quality agricultural land is lost to frequent inundation, and how are farmers meant to prepare for this uncertainty–—in economic and practical terms—when they already face such a heady mix of threats to their livelihoods? Just as farmers have been left to face the family farm tax instituted by the Labour party and have suffered the sudden loss of the sustainable farming incentive, they will also face the threat of flooding, without the help and support they need, if this Government fail to act in the long-term interests of rural communities.

We have reached the time for action on flood prevention and resilience. As I noted earlier, the way to manage the risks is with local knowledge, collaborative and long-term management strategies, and proper funding—essentially, with basic common sense. First, we must keep the valuable expertise of local people within the decision-making system. IDBs, local farmers and expert local committees know their land best, and we must give them the tools and authority to manage their own environments.

Secondly, we must build on projects such as the water maintenance pilot to foster long-term planning and inter-agency working. We can do more: the creation of a Lincolnshire rivers authority, for example, would provide a structured platform for long-term flood planning that could be tailored to the needs of local people, rather than to the nationwide EA or DEFRA frameworks.

Finally, we must ensure that vital projects receive the necessary funding, without being held up by central agencies’ cost-benefit frameworks. Local authorities should hold budgetary power as well as decision-making power to make sure that interventions are made where they are needed most, and in a timely and efficient way. With these measures, we can make sure that local people have control over their own local environment and give them the tools they need to prevent the devastating impacts of flooding, which have blighted some areas of Lincolnshire for too long.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate and on raising these very important issues, which I will endeavour to address in the time remaining.

Protecting communities, homes, businesses and farmland from flooding is a priority for this Government, and I am delighted to hear that Heighington Millfield academy students are now safely back at school. I am sure that there has been a lot of disruption, particularly for those taking public exams. I am grateful to the hon. Member for her generous comments about the Department for Education, DEFRA and EA officials who have been working at pace to minimise the impact, and I pay tribute to all the people involved in that—not least the parents and the students themselves. I am very pleased to hear that there are flood-resilient repairs, and I am interested in ways in which nature-based planting around the school can potentially help with flood mitigation in the future.

May I say how incredibly disappointed I am to hear that the Reform-led county council in Lincolnshire has taken the very short-sighted and unwelcome decision to abolish the flood risk and flood protection committee? This shows the danger of pandering to reactionary rhetoric and then leaving local homes and local communities unprotected. I shall be watching the council very closely to ensure that it is fulfilling its duties under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.

I am aware that the hon. Member’s constituency has been badly affected by flooding from Storms Babet and Henk during the winter of 2023-24. Sadly, more were flooded this January after heavy rainfall, and my thoughts are with those affected. As the former MP for Wakefield, I had 1,000 properties flooded in 2007, and I can tell her that the psychological impact on residents is very long lasting. I totally understand her desire to raise these matters on behalf of her constituents and the local communities she serves.

Engagement and collaboration are a key component of managing and mitigating flood risk, and I am pleased to hear that the hon. Member is in contact with the Environment Agency on these matters. I can confirm that her constituency is receiving £9.3 million from the Government’s flood investment programme this financial year, which is funding the repair and maintenance, as she said, of a number of crucial flood defences. As she mentioned Lincolnshire’s section 19 reports, I can say that officials tell me that they have been completed and that any decisions arising from them will take place in future funding years.

Work has started this month on phase 1 of the Lower Witham flood resilience project, which will support embankment assets. Phase 2 of the project, which is planned, will bring further investment in sustaining legacy assets while implementing adaptation measures to improve the resilience of the area to flooding.

The Environment Agency is working with partners to build an up-to-date model of the Lower Witham, to be completed this financial year, and it will be used to test future adaptive approaches and accurately assess flood risk. I will ask the Minister for Water and Flooding, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), to write to the hon. Member if there are any things that we cannot get through in the time available.

The River Slea flood resilience project is exploring a new, more sustainable solution to flood risk management in Sleaford. Public engagement has been undertaken with organisations and other stakeholders on this project. Ruskington is also being considered for a flood resilience project.

As set out by the Chancellor this week, in order to support the Government’s growth mission and plan for change, we are investing a record £4.2 billion over the next three years, from April 2026, to build new flood defences and to maintain and repair existing ones across the country. That is £1.4 billion each year. This is a 5% increase in our annual average investment compared with our existing spend of £2.65 billion over the past two years—2024-25 and 2025-26.

Our current investment programme is supporting 1,000 projects, which will help to protect 52,000 homes and businesses by March 2026. And through essential maintenance, a further 14,500 properties will have their expected level of protection maintained or restored. That is a total of 66,500 properties that will benefit, helping to secure jobs, deliver growth and protect against economic damage.

We have also unlocked £140 million from this investment to get 29 stalled projects moving. This is targeted at schemes that were ready to go, so that protection can be delivered faster for those who need it the most, and we have published the full list of funded schemes for this financial year.

The Government inherited flood assets in their poorest condition on record following years of under-investment, leaving 3,000 of the Environment Agency’s 38,000 key flood defence assets below the condition required. This Government are taking decisive action to fix the foundations, giving communities confidence that flood defences will protect them.

We are prioritising, over the current two spending years from 2024-25 and 2025-26, £108 million in repairing and restoring those critical assets. Last year, £36 million focused on damage from recent storms and flooding, with a further £72 million this year to ensure that defences are resilient, reliable and ready. In addition, environmental land management schemes present a valuable opportunity for supporting flooding and coastal erosion risk management, through direct funding of actions and providing a revenue stream to support landowners working with EA capital schemes, and through indirect actions that will lead to reduced watercourse maintenance requirements, increasing the lifespan of our assets.

The hon. Lady mentioned red diesel and I just wanted to make a quick point on that. The previous Government removed most red diesel entitlements from April 2022, but there are some exceptions. Risk management authorities, which include internal drainage boards, may use red diesel for drainage ditch clearance, including work relating to agriculture, horticulture and forestry. I hope that is a useful clarification.

Watercourse management responsibilities fall to different bodies. Riparian landowners whose land adjoins a watercourse, such as a drainage ditch, are required to keep those watercourses clear of anything that could be an obstruction. The EA has permissive powers to work on the main rivers, and lead local flood authorities or internal drainage boards have permissive powers for ordinary watercourses. The EA focuses on those activities that will achieve the greatest benefit in terms of protecting people and property from flooding. That, of course, can include dredging and clearing channels. In Lincolnshire, that often involves using the local IDBs.

The EA spends an average of £40 million a year on these activities to improve water flow in around 3,000 km of main rivers. The need for dredging is assessed on a location-by-location basis. The EA will work with local communities, IDBs and through public sector co-operation agreements to assess whether dredging is technically achievable and cost-effective, ensuring that it does not significantly increase flood risk downstream and that it is environmentally acceptable.

The hon. Lady asked about future funding reforms. The current approach to floods funding, introduced by a previous Government in 2011, neglects more innovative approaches. To address that, we have reviewed our approach and last week launched a consultation on proposals to reform the way we allocate funding to flood schemes. Our proposals will make it simpler for all risk management authorities to calculate their funding, benefiting all councils, including those that have less resource to commit to the application process. This should speed up the delivery of vital schemes and ensure that money is distributed more effectively across the country, including for rural and coastal communities, and poorer communities that have previously struggled to secure funding.

We will make it easier to invest in natural flood management schemes that also give benefits for nature, water resources and the fight against climate change. We are considering how communities can make better use of property flood resilience measures. Changes to the current approach to floods funding will be launched in time for the new floods investment programme, which will start in April 2026. The consultation is open to all and we encourage everyone with an interest to respond and help shape our future approach to flood funding.

This issue is at the very top of the Secretary of State’s priorities, which is why we set up a flood resilience taskforce to provide oversight of national and local flood resilience and preparedness. That taskforce represents a new approach that brings together representatives from national, regional and local government, the devolved Administrations, the emergency services, charities and environmental interest groups. We need to know what works and we are learning where we need to make changes. We have established action groups led by members to deliver progress on areas, including flood warnings, awareness of recovery and insurance schemes.

The Government fully support the vital role that internal drainage boards play in managing water and flood risk and in protecting the environment.

[Dr Johnson]

When I went around looking at the different areas of flooding in my constituency, I got a consistent message: that the EA had not performed as well as the IDBs and that it was costing more money per activity. In her final few minutes, can the Minister touch on how the IDBs can do more of the work and engage more local people in doing it for themselves?

[Mary Creagh]

The previous Government had allocated £75 million to the IDB fund; I am happy to say that in March we announced an additional £16 million boost to the fund. That creates a total of £91 million, which should enable IDBs to modernise and upgrade their assets and waterways so that they are fit for the future, improving water management for more than 400,000 hectares of agricultural land and about 91,000 homes and businesses. That includes three IDBs in the hon. Lady’s constituency: Black Sluice, Upper Witham and Witham First, which have received Government funding of about £10.4 million in grants from the IDB fund since 2024-25, to help with pumping station repairs and watercourse embankment repairs.

I am in my final minute. I encourage the hon. Lady’s constituents to sign up for flood warnings on gov.uk. It is vital that communities are in the communications chain so that they are aware of flood events, especially given that intense rainfall is expected this evening. I will endeavour to write to the hon. Lady about any other issues she may have.

Question put and agreed to.

Non-stun Slaughter of Animals

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ayoub Khan]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. Scientifically, one of the biggest challenges in modern times is to determine the level of pain. That will always be an enormous challenge; it just cannot be done. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that one method may be slightly less painful than the other, but it will never be factual. When we debate the different methods, we need real understanding, not dog whistles. Hon. Members have talked about the very small percentage of non-stunned meat, but we should be focusing on the wider cruelty, which simply goes unheard.

Britain has a long and storied history of tolerance for religious slaughter practices. Successive Governments have upheld that principle, and I encourage Members to honour it. Every individual has an inalienable right to freely practise their religion without fear of persecution or discrimination, or of the state setting conditions for them. Our society is made richer, more vibrant and more humane when we treat each other with dignity—even when we disagree. That dignity begins when we recognise when an argument is not about what it pretends to be about.

Let me be clear: abuse of the rules that perpetrates cruelty and excessive pain is reprehensible, and abattoirs that do not comply with welfare requirements should be disciplined, but the obligation to reduce animal suffering has its limits. Let us protect our faith communities, stand against veiled bigotry, and stand unapologetically with all affected communities.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman says that this is a long-standing practice for faith communities in the UK. I looked back, and there is UK legislation on this issue from the 1920s and 1930s that supports what he said. It looks like this Government have no intention of changing that. However, I have many constituents who would prefer not to eat animals that have not been stunned, because they are concerned about the pain that those animals may suffer. Would the hon. Gentleman support changes to legislation so that labels are placed on the food so that people know whether an animal has been stunned before slaughter and can make their own choices?

[Ayoub Khan]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I was about to conclude my speech, but I wholeheartedly agree. I believe that labelling is paramount, and that people should have the choice to decide what meat to consume based on the methods used in the animal’s final moments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the petitioners on bringing this important subject to Parliament.

I start by making something absolutely clear: the Liberal Democrats, and I personally, fully respect the right to freedom of religious belief and expression, and this debate must not be used as a smokescreen for antisemitism or Islamophobia. Too often, discussions about religious slaughter are hijacked by those with an agenda that has nothing to do with animal welfare. That is unacceptable. This debate must be grounded in science, evidence and animal welfare, not in prejudice, and our focus should be on improving welfare standards through respectful dialogue and evidence-based policy, not fuelling division or targeting communities.

To declare my very obvious conflict of interest, I am a veterinary surgeon. As a veterinary student, I had to spend a lot of time in abattoirs learning about the process and about public health. As a vet, I have had to issue emergency slaughter certificates for farms. I was on the policy committee of the British Veterinary Association, and we looked at farm assured schemes and welfare standards at different stages of animals’ lives on farms. As a veterinary profession, we have always been clear in talking purely about stunned and not stunned, and not bringing in kosher, halal or other types of religious slaughter, because doing so would muddy the waters and play into the hands of people who are trying to hijack the animal welfare agenda with antisemitism and Islamophobia.

The science is clear: the evidence shows that stunning animals before slaughter is the most humane method available. Stunning renders animals unconscious and insensible to pain prior to slaughter, and slaughter without stunning causes avoidable pain and distress. That is why, from a veterinary and animal welfare perspective, we want to see a reduction in the amount of non-stunned slaughter and a great uptake of stunning techniques that are compatible with religious practices. It is encouraging that almost 90% of halal meat in the UK is already pre-stunned. That is a clear example that animal welfare and religious observance can go hand in hand.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

When doing research for this debate, I found that the RSPCA states that 65% of all halal meat is pre-stunned; the rest of it, presumably, is not. Can the hon. Gentleman explain the difference, and why some meat would be classified as halal when it has been stunned and some would not?

[Dr Chambers]

If the RSPCA has different figures, I would ask it to explain where its figures come from. Not all non-stunned meat is halal. Some of it is shechita slaughter, and the hind quarters are not considered kosher, so they would go into the normal food chain. That could be why there are some discrepancies, but I am not familiar with how the RSPCA generated its figures, so I would take it up with the RSPCA.

I acknowledge that, as many hon. Members have rightly pointed out, there are failures in stun slaughter as well. That is sometimes due to bad practices and inadequate training in abattoirs, and is one reason why I was pleased to be part of the successful campaign to put CCTV in all abattoirs. We should ensure that legal standards are upheld, that anyone breaking those standards is held to account, and that adequate training is given.

I share the concerns about slaughter in which pigs are stunned with CO₂. I eat pork, but I am aware that such slaughter is a welfare concern in the veterinary world. We are looking at how we can improve that experience for pigs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

It is good to see you in your place, Mr Dowd, and it is a privilege to speak in this debate on a petition that has attracted over 109,000 signatures from members of the public across the country.

At the start of my comments, let me acknowledge the importance of this issue, which touches on two fundamental principles: commitment to animal welfare on the one hand, and respect for religious freedoms on the other. Those values should not be placed in opposition one to the other, but reconciled through careful evidence-based policy. The petition argues that non-stun slaughter is incompatible with modern animal welfare standards and urges the Government to ban the practice, as has already happened in some other European nations. It is worth remarking that the European Court of Human Rights has already ruled that such a ban does not violate the European convention on human rights. An hon. Member—I cannot remember which one—made reference to article 9 on freedom of religion, and the court has already found that that can be balanced against legitimate animal welfare concerns.

So there are conflicting positions. We have animal welfare, a cause close to the hearts of many Britons and many of our constituents—we can see that by the large number of signatures to this petition; I sometimes think my constituents prefer their animals to their neighbours. Many would prefer all animals to be stunned before slaughter. The RSPCA, the British Veterinary Association and Compassion in World Farming all argue that slaughter without prior stunning causes unnecessary pain and distress. Their research shows—there has been some conflict between the numbers being bandied around, but the general sense of the numbers has been consistent throughout the debate—that consciousness is lost for sheep within five to seven seconds and for adult cattle within 22 to 40 seconds, although some larger numbers were referenced in other people’s contributions. During that period we have to accept that animals will endure pain and suffering. For that reason, non-stunned killing has been banned for many years in this country, with the religious practice exception going back at least until 1933.

As the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) said in her intervention, we need to recognise that when we eat meat an animal always dies. But I accept the argument from the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), with his expertise as a veterinary surgeon. He said—I have no reason to doubt him—that the science is clear. Contrary to some of the arguments put forward by hon. Members during the course of this debate, welfare is improved by stunning. So where do we go from here?

I very much liked the contribution of the hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky), who, if I wrote this down correctly, said that there is a British answer: to maximise animal rights while defending religious freedoms. Equally venerable has been our determination as a society to defend religious freedoms. It goes back, as I mentioned a moment ago, as far as the Slaughter of Animals Act 1933, which contains an exemption for stunning for religious slaughter for Jews and Muslims. That has been repeated more recently in the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015. Religious slaughter in the UK is permitted under exemptions laid out in those regulations.

That does not mean that we cannot make significant improvements to the current position. One issue raised was that of oversupply: the killing of more animals without stunning than are required for religious observance in this country. That might be because they are being exported. That begs the question: why do we need a religious exemption to fund or support an export market rather than religious observance in this country? Another issue could simply be over-production. There is a wild variety of estimates as to how much oversupply there is in this country; the figures that I have seen vary between 32% over-production and 278% over-production. That could mean that as many as 99 million animals are being slaughtered annually without stunning, despite not being required for religious observance—at least, not in the UK.

Such a huge variation suggests that better data, at the very least, is required. What steps is the Minister intending to take to obtain reliable data on the end use of non-stunned meat? The second significant area where improvements can be made is in the area of labelling. Many consumers are unaware of whether the meat they purchase comes from stunned or non-stunned animals, and that is not the same as saying the meat is halal or kosher. We have heard repeatedly that 88% of all halal-killed animals are pre-stunned. Nevertheless, there are currently no legal requirements to label meat by method of slaughter. That creates a genuine lack of consumer choice—especially for those who, for ethical or welfare reasons, prefer to avoid non-stun meat, or conversely, those who wish to consume meat that has been religiously slaughtered.

[Dr Johnson]

The Conservative Government had a consultation on food labelling, which was completed last May. The current Government said they would respond, but they have now had more than a year to do so. Does my hon. Friend agree that they need to get on with it and ensure they respond as quickly as possible?

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend has clearly been looking over my shoulder, because I was about to say that the last Government did undertake a consultation; it is very noticeable that there has been no official response from the Government. My next question to the Minister, who I know is keen to provide us with full answers, is this: when will we receive an official response to that previous consultation? What is the current Government’s position on method of production labelling?

It must be right that increasing transparency through clearer labelling could empower consumers to make informed choices. Improved engagement with religious certification bodies could help to promote the wider use of pre-stunned methods, particularly for halal meat: some stunning methods—where the animal is capable of revival, for example—have been deemed compatible with religious standards. I hope that this afternoon’s debate leads to renewed engagement between the Government, communities, scientists, welfare organisations and religious groups, so that we find an accommodation, rather than a conflict, that both respects faiths and honours our shared responsibility for the welfare of animals.

Farming

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I declare an interest as the wife of a farmer and agricultural contractor. Farming is a difficult job—unbelievably long hours and physically hard work in all weathers every day of the year—but it is a true vocation and labour of love that farmers do to provide us with food eat and food security.

Lincolnshire farmers are particularly important for food security, providing 12% of the UK’s food, 30% of its veg, 18% of its poultry and 11% of its wheat. Jobs in the food chain make up 24% of jobs in the Greater Lincolnshire area, and farmers locally care for 13,500 acres of farmed woodland and 2,500 miles of public rights of way, but all that is under threat. Food production is less profitable and, in some cases, it is not profitable at all thanks to this Labour Government.

[John Lamont]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Throughout the debate, I have struggled to understand the point put forward by Labour Members that while they rightly acknowledge that farming is not profitable, they support a policy that will take even more cash away from farming businesses. Does she, like me, find those two policies hard to reconcile?

[Dr Johnson]

I find them extremely difficult to reconcile. In early October, I went to the “Farmers Weekly” awards in London where the Minister, in his red bowtie, gave a speech in which he said that the Government would have the farmers’ backs. I am sure he believed it was true when he said it, but within a month, he was unfortunately proven wrong with this Government’s Budget.

Many Members have talked about the profitability of farming. How will the family farm tax make farms more profitable? How will the family business tax, the drastic drops in delinked payments, the rise in the minimum wage, rising national insurance contributions, or the tax on double cab pick-ups make farms more profitable? They will not. How will closing the SPI payment scheme early and without notice, despite having promised to give notice, make farms more profitable and businesses more secure? It will not. The Government now talk about taking land without proper due consideration. That has led many farmers in my constituency to ask, “Why does this Labour Government hate farmers so much?” Why do they want to hurt our farmers so much?

[Noah Law]

What does the hon. Member think that the largest farming budget in recent years will do if not make farming more profitable?

[Dr Johnson]

I do not support the hon. Gentleman’s figures or think the Government will make farming more profitable. It is the classic socialist trick of saying, “We’ll give you some money here, and we’ll take some money there.” We have seen it with hospices and the NHS, and we see it with farming as well. They are taking money away in taxes left, right and centre, then giving a few pence over there and saying, “Be grateful, why don’t you?” I am afraid that it does not wash with farmers. Farmers are clever people, and they can see straight through it.

The effects of the Government’s policy will be reduced food security, the collapse of small businesses and the purchase of that land by larger corporations, and an increase in food prices for consumers rich and poor across the country. This is a debate on the future of farming. Many farmers in my constituency feel that, thanks to this Labour Government, they have no future in farming.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

We believe in a future in which farming thrives—one based on stability, growth and sustainability. Sadly, Labour’s policies jeopardise all three. Whether it is the disastrous last-minute overnight closure of the sustainable farming incentive, the relentless family death tax assault on family farms, or the negligence towards rural businesses, Labour’s agenda harms the heart of rural Britain, including my Kingswinford and South Staffordshire constituency.

Labour’s short-sightedness in deciding to stop accepting new applications for the sustainable farming incentive—with just half an hour’s notice given to the NFU despite the promise of six weeks’ notice—is a clear sign of its failure to understand the long-term needs of our farmers. While thousands of farmers were looking to the SFI for support, Labour has chosen short-term political convenience over long-term sustainability. Our farmers deserve consistency and trust in the future, not abrupt cuts to vital programmes. We will continue to back farmers.

Labour’s inheritance tax policies are a direct attack on the heart of family farms. The planned cuts to agricultural property relief and business property relief will make it impossible for farmers to pass on their livelihoods and their businesses—the farms that they have been farming for generations—to their children without facing huge tax burdens. According to the NFU, someone who inherits an average cereal farm from their parents faces 10 inheritance tax payments, with each one representing 1.5 times what they can expect to make in annual profits. They are running at a loss to fund the Government. That is serfdom, not farming.

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is making a great and impassioned speech. The Government are saying that one can avoid the tax, but one does not know who is going to die and when. In fact, the generations do not necessarily always occur 10 years apart, which could compound the tax even further, could it not?

[Mike Wood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Clearly, the people who are best placed to avoid paying the tax are the very people who ought to be paying and contributing: the mega landowners. For the average cereal farmer, however, who could face inheritance tax bills of 1.5 times the value of their annual profits, the only recourse will be to sell land or machinery. That is so blatantly obvious that the fact that the Government do not see it makes it difficult to assume that the policy is down to incompetence rather than a deliberate strategy to dismantle family farms, particularly when combined with the compulsory purchase plans set out by the Deputy Prime Minister this week.

Labour’s policies threaten the future of farming, rural businesses and the communities that rely on them. The sustainable farming incentive, inheritance tax reliefs, biosecurity, and the damage caused to our high streets by Labour’s Budget—in each of those areas, Labour’s mismanagement is letting down farmers, their families and our rural communities. Rural Britain can thrive when farmers are supported, businesses are protected and communities grow stronger. We will continue to fight for that future, and I call on the Government to change course before it is too late for our rural way of life. We will continue to fight for our farming communities, including mine in Kingswinford and South Staffordshire.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and congratulate him on securing this very important debate on the future of farming. I will not say that I agreed with all his conclusions in his opening comments, although I listened to them closely, but I thank him and his fellow members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for their continuing work. I look forward to meeting his Committee in time.

I am very grateful to have the opportunity to talk about the very important role that farming plays in this country, because food security is national security, and our commitment to farmers is absolutely steadfast. It is the hard work of the UK’s farmers that puts food on our tables and stewards our beautiful countryside.

As we all know, though, the sector is facing high costs and tight margins. Farmers have struggled to get enough workers to pick fruit and veg, and frankly, they have been sold out in past trade deals. Farmland is increasingly at risk from severe flooding and drought, and this all comes as we face the biggest transition for farming in generations, moving away from the basic payment scheme towards more sustainable methods of farming. The underlying problem in the sector is that farmers do not make enough money for the hard work and commitment that they put in. We are absolutely committed to making farming more profitable, and that approach will underpin our 25-year farming road map and our food strategy, through which we will work in partnership with farmers to make farming and food production sustainable and profitable.

That road map stands on three principles, the first of which is a sector that has food production at its core. The role of farming will always be to produce the food that feeds our nation. The instability that we have seen, both relating to Ukraine and during covid, shows that food security truly is national security. The second principle is a sector in which farm businesses are more resilient and able to withstand the shocks that disrupt farming from time to time, whether it be severe flooding, drought or disease. We will help farmers who want to diversify their income to put more money into their business, so that they can survive those more difficult times when they come.

[Dr Johnson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am going to make some progress, because I know that time is short. The third principle is a sector that recognises that restoring nature is not in competition with sustainable food production, but is essential to it.

On our first strand—food production—our new deal for farmers is supporting them to produce food sustainably and profitably, and we are making progress. Statistics released earlier this week show that average farm business incomes across the country are forecast to rise in the first year of this Government. That is welcome news, but we recognise that there is more to do. That certainly will not happen overnight, but over recent weeks, we have announced a series of new policies. We are extending the seasonal worker visas for five years, and we are making the supply chain fairer, an issue raised by my hon. Friends the Members for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) and for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter). In the next few weeks, we will see new regulations for the pig sector, making sure that contracts clearly set out expectations and only allow changes if they are agreed by all parties. Of course, we are also introducing a new regulator alongside the Groceries Code Adjudicator, building on the work of the existing regulator—the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator, which is already in place.

We are using the Government’s own purchasing power to back British produce, working with the Cabinet Office to create new requirements for Government catering contracts to favour high-quality, high-welfare products that British producers are well placed to provide, as was outlined very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley). That will mean that British farmers and producers can compete for a fairer share of the £5 billion a year that the public sector spends on food, with that money going straight into farmers’ bank accounts to boost turnover and profits. We will never lower our food standards in trade agreements, but will promote robust standards nationally and internationally, and will always consider whether overseas produce has an unfair advantage. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) and by others.

We are investing in the UK agri-technology sector, and I listened closely to the comments made by the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman)—there is always much that we agree on. As we announced last month, we are looking to put in a further £110 million in farming grants, and we are also strengthening the wider British tech sector, a point that was made well by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer). These reforms will support farmers to make more money from the food they produce.

On the second strand, diversification, farmers must be resilient against future challenges if they are to remain financially viable and strengthen food security. We know the threat from flooding, drought and animal disease, as well as the geopolitical tensions that increase demands on our land for energy generation. We are investing to help farm businesses build resilience against animal diseases that can devastate livelihoods and threaten our entire economy—we are all mindful of the issues with bluetongue and avian flu. On the recent case of foot and mouth that we saw in Germany and the one in Hungary, I spoke to the Hungarian Minister earlier this week, and we have put in place all the appropriate precautions. As ever, though, if the shadow Secretary of State wants a briefing with the chief vet, that is always available in these cases.

We are investing over £200 million to set up a new national biosecurity centre, modernising the Animal and Plant Health Agency facilities in Weybridge, which will be vital for protecting farmers, food producers and exporters from disease outbreaks that we know can be devastating to businesses. We are helping keepers of cattle, sheep and pigs in England to improve the health, welfare and productivity of their animals by expanding the fully funded farm visits offer. We have also announced new ways to help farmers to remain profitable and viable, even in a challenging harvest.

We will consult on national planning reforms this spring to make it quicker for farmers to build new buildings, barns and other infrastructure to boost food production, and we will ensure that permitted development rights work for farms to convert larger barns into whatever is required or suits their business planning, whether that is a farm shop, a holiday let or a sports facility. We are working with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero so that more farm businesses can connect their own electricity generation to the grid more quickly, so that farmers can sell surplus energy and diversify income.

The third element is nature. Restoring nature is vital to food production; it is not in competition with it. Healthy soils, abundant pollinators and clean water are the foundations that farm businesses rely on to produce high crop yields and turn a profit. Without nature thriving, there can be no long-term food security. That point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy). We now have more than half of all farmers in environmental schemes. That includes 37,000 live SFI agreements, meaning that 800,000 hectares of arable land is being farmed without insecticides, 300,000 hectares of low-impact grassland is managed sustainably and 75,000 km of hedgerows are being protected and restored. That is important for nature.

We have already had a discussion about the SFI cap. It is set at £1.05 billion for 2024-25 and 2025-26. As we discussed yesterday, that cap was reached this week with a record number of farmers in the scheme and 37,000 live agreements. Every penny is now paid to farmers or committed for payment through existing agreements or submitted applications. We will continue to support farmers to transition to more sustainable farming models, and we will announce details of the revised scheme after the spending review.

Environmental Protection

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton). It was an excellent maiden speech—very interesting—and his constituency sounds lovely. Indeed, it sounds almost as lovely as Sleaford and North Hykeham, but not quite. I welcome him to his place, and hope he enjoys his time in the House.

I also welcome the regulations. Some people say that ten-minute rule Bills never become legislation, but today, mine will. On 8 February 2023, I introduced the Disposable Electronic Cigarettes (Prohibition of Sale) Bill. I put on record my thanks for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), and the hon. Members for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist), as well as many former Members who supported that Bill. There was then a consultation that showed that the measures in the Bill had broad support in the country. It showed that at that point, 70% of the public supported those measures—a high figure. The Conservative Government then introduced the Environmental Protection (Single-use Vapes) (England) Regulations 2024, which sadly did not pass through wash-up before the general election and therefore did not become law. I am delighted that the current Government are bringing these measures forward, but disappointed that they will not come into effect until June, although I understand the reasons that the Minister has given.

There are essentially two reasons why this legislation is very important: the protection of children, and the protection of our natural environment. When it comes to protecting children, I declare an interest—well, three interests as the mother of three children, but also an interest as a children’s doctor in the NHS. As has been said, when vapes were introduced, it was claimed that they were a “stop smoking” device. I would argue that they were introduced as an alternative addiction, but they certainly are not suitable for children. The chief medical officer has clearly stated on a number of occasions that vapes may be better than smoking, but those who are not smokers should avoid using them at all.

Unfortunately, children have been attracted to these devices. It is my view that in some cases, the vaping industry has made them deliberately more attractive to children. I do not see why a middle-aged smoker wishing to quit would need a unicorn-flavoured vape, or one shaped like SpongeBob SquarePants or a teddy bear. They are cheap, disposable, and in my view clearly designed to attract children, which they certainly have done. This risks creating a whole generation of nicotine addicts, and the long-term effects of these devices are unknown. They are causing disruption in schools—eight children at a Sleaford school in my constituency have collapsed following the inhalation of certain vapes.

The protection of the natural environment is important. When I introduced my ten-minute rule Bill, I mentioned in my speech that 1.3 million of these devices were being discarded a week. The latest figure is 5 million, and even that figure is becoming slightly out of date. They are very difficult to recycle, and if they are discarded as litter, they create toxic waste that pollutes our soil, rivers and streams. If they are crushed in a bin lorry, they can cause fires, and have indeed done so.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a particular issue with the discarding of single-use vapes in our town centres? Most of our councils do not have enough money to keep town centres clean; in Cheltenham, I believe the bill is in excess of £1 million per year. There is a real issue there, not just about the environment, but about public sector finances at the local level.

[Dr Johnson]

I understand the hon. Member’s point, but the party responsible for putting an item in the bin is not the council, but the person who has it in their hand. People who drop litter should take responsibility. They should not be doing so in the first place. When I worked with the River Slea clean-up project a year ago, we picked up a lot of these devices from the riverside and the river itself. They are clearly a danger to the environment and should not be discarded.

My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) talked about his dog Poppy. He has recounted that story to me before, and it horrified me, as a dog owner, that any animal could hurt themselves so badly with a vape. We also heard the Minister talk about tyres exploding; goodness knows what would happen if a poor dog or another animal crushed one of these things in their mouth, so I am pleased that they are being banned.

One of the challenges with this legislation was defining disposable vapes. The Government have defined them as ones that are not refillable and rechargeable. In an ideal world, the industry would accept that, produce the refillable vapes it currently produces and move on. However, there is a great financial interest in these products, and I am concerned that the industry will try to find workarounds and get-arounds to create a nominally reusable, but practically not terribly reusable, product at a price point that means it will be discarded. That would continue the problem, so I ask the Minister to keep these products under review, look carefully for signs of these issues in the way that vapes are manufactured, and legislate if necessary.

The Minister talked about those involved in enforcement being given the resources they need, so will she tell us how much has been budgeted and allocated for enforcement of the new rules?

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

Enforcement often falls to local councils’ public protection departments. As a councillor in West Berkshire, I led on public protection, and our cupboards were full of illegal vapes that we had seized. I absolutely support the call for resources, but we must make sure that they are delivered to local councils, so that they can employ more enforcement officers. Those officers can get into shops, and into the back of those shops, which is where the illegal vapes are often stored, while the legal vapes are in the shop window. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is important to get that funding to local enforcement teams?

[Dr Johnson]

I certainly do. One benefit of the ban on disposable vapes is that regardless of whether or not a disposable vape is currently illegal on the basis of its constitution and content, it will now be illegal. It will be much easier to identify illegal vapes, because all disposable versions will be illegal. I also agree that we must get the money to councils to do these things, but employing a new enforcement officer will of course now cost more money. The Government’s raising of national insurance contributions and lowering of the threshold at which they are paid will affect councils up and down the country. I do not think the Government have really considered the direct cost to public sector employers, or the knock-on effects where services are contracted out and provided by a third party—a private company or a charity. That third party will, no doubt, pass the costs on to the councils. That is a huge concern.

This legislation is the start of creating an overall package to control vaping and protect our children and our natural environment. I welcome it, and I will support it today.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), who has brought a lot of knowledge to the debate.

I want to begin by referring to the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton). The last time I was this close to him was early in July, before polling day, when I was standing in a pub garden overlooking Chesil beach with my good friend Richard Drax. I very much enjoyed listening to his tribute to Richard Drax, who was not only a good friend of mine, but a great servant of democracy. He contributed enormously to the successful campaign to leave the European Union, after which he was a diligent member of the European Scrutiny Committee. He was also extremely active on what was his great love: trying to ensure that we maintain strong defences in our country, and he used his military background to great effect in debates.

However, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that he is lucky to be here. I have every confidence that, had it not been for the previous Government’s intransigence over the Bibby Stockholm, Richard Drax would still have been in this House, so it was with mixed feelings that I listened to what the hon. Gentleman had to say, but I extend a warm welcome to him. I am sure that he and I will do our best to ensure that Dorset continues to improve its provision of good-quality services to all its citizens.

Turning to the subject of the debate, it came as a bit of a disappointment that neither the Minister nor my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) referred much to the unintended health consequences of outlawing disposable vapes. There is already a real problem with illegal disposable vapes—it is estimated that probably one third of vapes are illegal. Those are already bad for the environment, but what will the measures do to address that problem? Not very much, I fear. As I said, it is estimated that some 360 million disposable vapes got on to the market in the United Kingdom in 2023. I had a briefing from British American Tobacco, which highlights that 4.5 million illegal vapes were seized at the border by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in 2023. The gap between the 4.5 million illegal vapes seized, and the 360 million estimated to be in circulation, highlights the gravity and extent of the problem, particularly when we extrapolate into the future; the number of illegal vapes could be as high as 1 billion by 2030. That is an enormous amount of income for people engaged in black market trade, people smuggling, and other illicit activities.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is quite difficult for the consumer to establish which vapes are illegal and which are not? One may have thought that going into a reputable supermarket to buy such a product was a surefire way of ensuring that it was safe, but we have heard examples of major supermarkets selling a well known brand of vapes that had more in them than was legally allowed. If we ban disposable vapes, it will become very clear: all disposable ones will be illegal.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

The information I have about the extent of illegal vapes in the marketplace comes from the Government. In their impact assessment for the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which will be debated in the next fortnight, the Government accept that about 30% of the market is illegal, and that is where I got my figures. My hon. Friend refers to supermarkets. I am not suggesting that there is any illegal activity in supermarkets or among responsible retailers.

[Dr Johnson]

My point was that there have been examples of supermarkets unknowingly selling vapes that did not meet requirements, and it is difficult for a consumer who puts a disposable vape in each hand to identify which is allowed and which is not. As a result of the new regulations, they will be able to tell, because both will not be allowed.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am not sure that will help much. My hon. Friend refers to the packaging of vapes, but the number of vapes described as refillable or reusable is projected to increase exponentially over the next several years. The question I asked—I did not really get an answer from the Minister—is what the impact will be of all those refillable or reusable vapes on the environment. The same issues to do with what goes into the manufacture of vapes apply to both disposable and reusable vapes. Why would we need to have 2 billion reusable vapes being sold by 2034 if they are not being disposed of? Just because they are described as reusable does not mean that they cannot be disposed of after one use. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham made the point that we need to be wary of how the Chinese, who are the leading manufacturers and exporters in this field, may well adapt their products to try to circumvent these regulations. In any event, what they and other manufacturers are producing is a cost on the environment, in the sense that they are using scarce resources.

Let us not be naive: the fact that something is reusable does not mean it is a permanent fixture. For example, in my parents’ day, they used to smoke cigarettes through a filter that they held. Even those filters were not permanent. I remember many occasions on which my parents said that they had to get rid of the filter and replace it with another. Do not let us be naive and think that this enormously large number of reusable vape devices that are projected to be sold in 2034 will not end up in landfill.

[Dr Johnson]

I am interested to know: is my hon. Friend trying to argue that the Government should have gone further and banned all vapes, including those that can be refilled?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am not suggesting that; I am referring to the impact assessment. The Minister, in responding to my intervention earlier, referred to the statement made yesterday to the effect that a new magic pill will be available on the NHS to enable people to be weaned off smoking and, in particular, the nicotine effects of smoking. When bringing that forward, the Government said that the new pill would be as effective as vaping. They did not suggest it would be more effective, but as effective, thereby recognising the important role that vaping has in promoting public health.

These regulations are being brought forward on the basis of the environmental benefits that will flow from them, but let us be clear that there is little provision for enforcement. Reference has been made to the additional burden on local authorities. Paragraph 183 of the regulatory impact assessment states:

“There will be costs associated with inspection and law enforcement services to support the ban. Trading Standards Authorities (TSAs) would be best placed to enforce the ban, and work will be undertaken with LAs to establish the most effective and efficient way of enforcement.”

The impact assessment goes on to calculate that the enforcement costs will be low, because the assumption is

“as per Better Regulation guidance to assume 100% compliance by businesses.”

If we make that assumption—in my submission, it is a false one—it can lead to the acceptance of figures from the Government that no additional costs will arise from enforcing these new regulations. I think that is a load of nonsense.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for listening to the points that I have been making. They can be summed up as: smoking costs lives; vaping saves lives. Therefore, if we can encourage more people to vape rather than smoke, that is to the benefit of public health and the individuals affected, as well as assisting those who suffer as a result of secondary smoking or passive smoking. The consequence, which is accepted by the Government in their impact assessment, is that by taking these measures against single-use vapes, quite a lot of people who currently use them will go back to smoking.

Vapes have a 65% success rate in enabling people to quit smoking. The chief executive of Action on Smoking and Health said that “scare stories” about young people vaping could be causing the misconception among adult smokers that vaping is at least as risky as smoking. We know that it is not. Compliant vapes do not contain tobacco and do not produce smoke, and vape aerosols do not contain the harmful chemicals found in tobacco smoke. Why are the Government therefore proposing to introduce regulations, which, on their own figures, will result in about 26% of people going from vaping back to tobacco products?

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

My hon. Friend is referring to an important issue. I know that he is concerned about personal responsibility and people’s ability to make their own choices. The Government face something of a choice between the protection of an adult—a former smoker who is now vaping, who will be presented with a choice of going back to smoking, stopping vaping or using a reusable vape—and the protection of children. Surely the protection of children is more important, as adults are free to make their own choices about what they wish to do, as long as it is an informed choice.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

There is already vaping among children. As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) said, children cannot buy vapes and should not be using them, but if children are going to choose between vaping and smoking, it is better that they should go for vaping rather than smoking. One of the unintended consequences that may flow from the regulations is that, instead of using vaping products, an increasing number of children will go back to smoking behind the bike sheds, or whatever the modern equivalent is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. A lot of public services have been run down over the past 14 years. In the Budget, there was an investment of £75 million in border security command to crack down on organised crime. Gangs often operate in multiple sectors of the economy. We need time for this new approach to intelligence gathering and sharing to bed in.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mary Creagh]

Can I make some progress? I am just conscious of time. I am very happy to take interventions towards the end, because I might have answered any questions in advance.

Single-use vapes are one form of illicit vapes. The Government are planning to introduce other pieces of vape legislation under the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, as well as the vaping product duty, as part of a cross-Government approach, so we will look at these things in future and focus on intelligence sharing between Border Force, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and trading standards.

Enforcement is critical to effectiveness. We will work closely with the DHSC and the relevant enforcement bodies, but I do take on board what the hon. Member for Christchurch said about size and number of vapes. I picked up an illegal vape on the street outside my home. It was rechargeable but not refillable, and had too many puffs in it to be legal. For those of us who are not vapers, it is a whole world of complexity. I am certainly on a steep learning curve.

The legislation has been drafted to address fears that manufacturers could circumvent the ban, for example by adding a USB port to the end of a single-use device and calling it reusable, but a manufacturer who adheres to these regulations will have produced a reusable vape. That requires batteries that can be recharged, a tank that can be refilled or pods that can be replaced, and a coil—the part of the vape that burns out with use—that can also be replaced. In that respect, we are going further than other countries such as France and Belgium.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) expressed concern about the health impacts. We know that tobacco is a harmful product and is responsible for one in four of all cancer deaths, killing up to two thirds of its long-term users. The Government are creating the first smokefree generation, so that children turning 15 this year, or younger, can never be legally sold tobacco, while not preventing anyone who currently smokes legally from being able to do so. The ban applies not to all vapes, but just to those that harm the environment. There will still be easy-to-use products on the market to help adults stop smoking. The hon. Member for Christchurch mentioned 29% of users reverting to smoking following the ban, but it is incorrect to suggest that it will cause a surge in smoking rates. As stated in the assessment, we expect most single-use vape users to stop smoking or to switch to reusable vapes or non-vape products, including nicotine replacement therapies such as nicotine patches and gum.

The Tobacco and Vapes Bill, recently introduced by the Government, takes strong action to strengthen enforcement on illegal vapes, including new fixed-penalty notices and new licensing and registration powers, which will act as a deterrent and empower trading standards to act more quickly against illegitimate producers and retailers. In the first instance, a £200 fixed penalty notice will be issued, and alongside that a stop notice may be issued ordering the business or individual to cease the illegal activity. If it is not complied with, an individual will be guilty of an offence and liable for an unlimited fine, or imprisonment of up to six months. The Budget provides for a £70 million investment in local authority-led stop smoking services, so I hope that the Swap to Stop scheme will continue to help adult smokers to ditch their cigarettes for a free vape starter kit.

[Dr Johnson]

The impact assessment has been referred to repeatedly during the debate. I understand that it refers to this piece of legislation only, and not to the wider impact of other measures that the Government have proposed, or that have not completed their parliamentary process. Is that correct? Will an assessment of the effects not need to be done in the round, rather than applying to a specific piece of legislation that is only part of a wider plan to tackle youth vaping?

[Mary Creagh]

My understanding is that the assessment relates to this piece of legislation—I see my officials nodding vigorously in the Box—but if there are any further questions that the hon. Lady would like to ask me following the debate, I shall be only too happy to respond to her in person.

I hope that I have covered most of the comments and questions from colleagues. We are banning a product that is designed almost as a toy, a pocket-money product at pocket-money prices that is intended to appeal to those under 18. This legislation is needed to stop the continued misuse of critical resources and harm to our environment, as well as to support wider measures across government to tackle the increase in youth vaping, and is widely backed by the vast majority of the public and our stakeholders.

I trust that Members understand and accept the need for the regulations, and I commend them to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Environmental Protection (Single-use Vapes) (England) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 23 October, be approved.

Business of the House (Today)

Ordered,

That, at this day’s sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16(1) (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), proceedings on the Motions in the name of Secretary Jonathan Reynolds relating to Export and Investment Guarantees shall be brought to a conclusion not later than 90 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order; the Speaker shall then put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on those Motions; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Lucy Powell.)

Budget: Implications for Farming Communities

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Not only do those people seem to relish finding ways of creatively running their accounts, but some of them even take money to write columns about it.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I declare that my husband is in agriculture and farming, and therefore I have an indirect financial interest in the topic. This Government promised that they would not raise national insurance contributions, but they have. They promised that they would not reduce agricultural property relief, but they have. They have also added a fertiliser tax and a tax on pick-up trucks as a way of compounding the misery. Has the Minister done an impact assessment on food security and food prices following the Budget, and will he publish it?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Lady will know that many things impact food prices. I gently suggest to the Conservatives that they might want to look more closely at food price rises over the past few years before giving us any lectures on how to manage things. I am confident about this, because I have looked at the figures issued by the Treasury on the number of claims made in the past few years, and our figures stack up.

Farming and Food Security

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

The Secretary of State should be doing that, but there is a marked difference between us. I persuaded the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to strengthen the guidance against solar farms, but the Secretary of State is being pushed around by his Cabinet colleagues. The Energy Secretary has already walked all over him, granting permission for a whole load of solar farms, and allowing the clustering that is causing such an issue.

I will give the House an example of how the Secretary of State is not championing farming. Baroness Rock was a true voice in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for tenant farmers, and she wrote the review of tenant farming that I commissioned in a previous role in No. 10, but it seems that she has been sacked or asked to leave the DEFRA board. It would be helpful if the Secretary of State said why such a respected and talented figure had to leave her role.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Steve Barclay]

I will, and then I will make some progress.

[Dr Johnson]

My right hon. Friend is talking about the clustering of solar farms, but that is not the only problem. They are being built on high-quality agricultural land, which is nonsensical.

[Steve Barclay]

It is, and a further concern in my constituency is that the consultants who do soil sampling for the developers are often felt to be interpreting and grading the quality of soil in a way that is not consistent with local knowledge.

Back in May, the previous Government allocated £50 million of additional support to farmers hit by the wet weather. They extended the farming recovery fund to 1,000 more farmers, so that it covered all those affected in England. On top of that, in March, we announced the allocation of an additional £75 million to internal drainage boards, which are essential to protecting agricultural land from floods and storms.

We now have a Labour Government who neither understand nor care for rural communities. [Hon. Members: “Rubbish!”] They were not so vocal when they launched their manifesto, which devoted just 87 words to farming. There was not a single mention of farming in the King’s Speech, because the Government have made the active choice to de-prioritise British farming and food production.

On the immediate challenge, the answer to a recent parliamentary question backs up what the sector is telling me. The £50 million of additional farming recovery fund support is yet to be paid out. We have just established that we have had the wettest weather for 150 years and that 10 counties have had particularly challenging weather, yet despite having a known scheme, with an extra £50 million, they have not allocated that much-needed, time-critical support. The Secretary of State needs to explain why. The NFU says its members simply cannot wait any longer for the support, yet Labour seems to want to keep them waiting. Reports suggest that the £75 million for the internal drainage boards is also on a go-slow, and we need to know why.

For the longer term, Labour Ministers have overruled officials to cover some of the country’s best farmland in solar panels. They have rejected the plans for binding food security targets. It has even been suggested in media reports that they plan to cut the farming budget by £100 million. Indeed, it was reported that the NFU president has said that his members are being “kept up at night” by the “cliff edge” that Labour’s lack of commitment on the agriculture budget is causing.

The Government need to change course. They need to give immediate confidence to the sector and show that they care about food security. To do so, they need to commit to five things: first, that the full £50 million of additional wet weather support we announced in May will be paid out in full.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

As always, my hon. Friend makes an important point very eloquently. During the election campaign, I spoke to farmers up and down the country—as I did before that and have done since—who were absolutely furious that, having been promised continued access to the European markets where they were selling their great, high-quality British produce, they were instead taking a financial hit as trade barriers were thrown up and they could no longer sell into those markets. We want to correct that by seeking a new veterinary deal with the European Union to get exports moving across the borders again.

We will not allow food producers to continue to bear the brunt of unfair supply chains. Farmers deserve a fair price for the food they produce, and we will bring forward proposals to make sure that happens. One of the biggest cost rises affecting British farmers has been energy bills. We will prevent future price shocks by switching on GB Energy, so we can harness the power of wind, wave, solar and nuclear energy to keep bills down and take back control of our own energy supplies from foreign fossil-fuel dictators like Vladimir Putin.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

The Secretary of State talks about the importance of cheap energy, solar and food security. Clearly, land needs a balance. What representations has he made to the Energy Secretary to be clear that the best farmland should not be used for ground-mounted solar?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Lady has made that point to me before, and I reassure her that, even at their most ambitious extent, solar farms would not cover more than 1% of agricultural land. For farmers, climate change is also a significant concern. The reason we are seeing such heavy rainfall is climate change: that is what is leading to the flooding and droughts that are damaging farmers. If we do not take action to transition to a clean energy economy, farmers will continue to suffer from things that none of us wish them to have to deal with.

Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 17th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I rise to support the Bill, and to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on having brought it forward. I am very lucky to live in and represent a lovely, beautiful area of Lincolnshire that has gorgeous countryside. Like many people, I like taking my dog, Bonnie, for a walk through the countryside, but as a farmer’s wife, I also recognise that it is a working landscape—that crops are being grown for food, and that livestock is being looked after, too.

Dog ownership has increased since lockdown. Although most dog owners are responsible and most dogs good-natured, research suggests that dogs are now more likely than before to be left off leads or out of sight. The natural behaviour of all dogs is to chase. Many people are unaware that if their dog chases a sheep, it may cause that sheep distress. They may not be aware that even if the dog does not catch the sheep, the simple fact of being chased can cause a pregnant ewe to miscarry her lamb or to die. Not only does that have an emotional effect on sheep by causing them to suffer, but it causes an emotional and financial stress for the farmer, as we have heard, so I welcome these steps to strengthen the law.

As others have mentioned, education on the countryside code is important, and it should extend beyond the Bill to include littering and the closing of gates to keep livestock safe. I welcome the steps to detect where crimes has occurred, as well as the unlimited nature of the fine, which will help to deter people from committing the crime in the first place and encourage them to look after their dogs. I hope that the publicity that my right hon. Friend has generated for the Bill will serve to provide educational opportunities.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Opposition Front Bencher.

Animal Welfare (Responsibility for Dog Attacks) Bill

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

It is a huge privilege, having already had the pleasure of guiding my Pet Abduction Bill through the Commons this Session, to have the opportunity to debate my other private Member’s Bill, which I first introduced in the previous Session. This Bill, as the Minister knows, would amend the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to require a person in charge of a dog to take all reasonable steps to ensure that that dog does not fatally injure another dog, and would impose criminal liability if they fail to take reasonable steps and their dog fatally injures another dog. That is to plug a gap in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 that was painfully brought to my attention, which I will come on to. Before I go any further though, I thank the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, so ably led by Lorraine and Chris Platt, for all its help in getting the Bill as far as we have today.

We all know that we are a nation of dog lovers. There are now some 12 million dogs in the UK; that is more than the populations of Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire combined, and then doubled. That works out to nearly half of all households in the UK having a dog. And we all know how loved our dogs are; we only have to look at the excitements of the Westminster dog of the year competition to see that. Indeed, as the House well knows, my cavapoochon, Lottie, is a much-loved member of our family. Companionship is the most common reason for having a dog and that was absolutely the case for my constituent Michael.

Michael was one of the first constituents who ever came to see me—in fact, he came to see me even before I became a Member of this House—and he was so distressed and in such anguish that it was a pleasure to take up his cause. Michael had a friend called Emily, who sadly died, and he adopted her beautiful white fluffy bichon frisé bitch, Millie, both to keep him company and to help him to grieve his friend, Emily. However, around two and a half years ago, Millie was savagely attacked by an off-lead, out-of-control dog while Michael was walking her through the rose garden in Chalkwell Park in Leigh-on-Sea.

Michael remembers the attack as if it were yesterday. It was like watching a horror movie. He described how the dog came at Millie like a missile, even though Millie was on the lead, and

“shook her like a rag-doll.”

Poor Michael watched, helpless, as Millie was literally torn apart. After the attack, the best he could do was carry her to the nearest vet’s, all the while bleeding and with serious open wounds to her abdomen. To add insult to injury, the owner of the dog that attacked Millie refused to take any responsibility for the attack, refusing to pay the vet’s bills for euthanasia.

No owner or dog should have to go through what Michael and Millie went through, and Michael is devastated and scarred by that experience even to this day. Obviously, he reported the matter to the police, but he was told there was nothing they could do because the incident was dog on dog and no human had been injured. You will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that dog-on-dog attacks are becoming more commonplace; I am sure you have seen the extensive reports in the media and we only have to google “dog-on-dog attacks” to see a long list of news reports. Just this month, on 9 May, a couple was featured after their dog was so savagely attacked that they were hit with a staggering £23,000 vet’s bill for its treatment.

The loophole in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is unacceptable and that is why I chose to reintroduce the Bill this Session. I am aware that most presentation Bills never make it on to the statute book, so I am pleased to report to the House that, as a result of the Bill and of my lobbying the Government, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials have been working with the Crown Prosecution Service to update its prosecution guidance on dog attacks and attacks on other animals. That guidance now makes it explicit that a dog-on-dog attack can be prosecuted under section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act, the offence of a dog being dangerously out of control.

That is a good step forward, but the keyword is “can” —a lot of things can be prosecuted, but simply are not. I remain concerned primarily because there is no exhaustive definition of what a dog’s being dangerously out of control actually means. For example, those same sentencing guidelines state that

“it does not follow that if the dog causes injury, the dog was dangerously out of control.”

We could therefore have the ludicrous situation where a dog kills another dog and it is not deemed to be dangerously out of control—if, for example, the owner of a dangerous dog deliberately sets it on a neighbour’s dog. Although the updated guidance is a step forward, it does not deal with the problem I seek to address.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and giving some very upsetting and tragic examples of how dogs attack dogs. Does she see similarities between this Bill and the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill, which we discussed earlier, where the dogs have attacked livestock, and does she agree that more must be done to ensure that dog owners behave responsibly?

[Anna Firth]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which is absolutely right. This is about placing responsibility on the owner, not criminalising the dog itself. That is exactly why I am bringing forward this private Member’s Bill.

When I first introduced the Bill, I was contacted by many dog owners up and down the country, who shared heartbreaking tales about the loss of their treasured dogs. Many of them have contacted me again and are delighted that the Bill is being reintroduced today. Let me deal first with the scale of the problem. The Minister knows that, in order to support Michael, I submitted freedom of information requests to all 43 territorial police forces in the UK, asking whether they record dog-on-dog attacks as a separate offence and, if so, how many they have recorded over the last five years. Shockingly, only 14 police forces currently record a dog-a-dog attack as a separate incident. In 2016, they recorded a total of 1,700 dog-on-dog attacks. Five years on, the number had skyrocketed: in 2021, the same 14 police forces recorded 11,559 dog-on-dog attacks—a 700% increase—with a shocking 2,264 in London alone. The true incidence of dog-on-dog attacks is likely to be even higher, because the fact that a police force does not record dog-on-dog attacks as separate offences does not mean that they are not happening.

On the current legislative framework, laws have been strengthened in recent years to protect the public where a dog presents a risk to public safety—whether in public or in private—but it remains the case that a dog owner is not automatically liable for any form of criminal prosecution when their dog fatally injures another, unless the other dog is a guide, assistance or service dog, the dog bites a human, or

“there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person”.

That sounds good—it is an objective test—but it is not universally applied, and the proof of the pudding is what happened in Michael’s case. He was asked whether he wanted to press for some sort of prosecution, but he said that he had not feared for his own safety. It had been clear that the dog was going for the smaller dog, and Michael did not fear that there was a danger to himself at that point. The law does not adequately cover this type of incident, and pet dogs should have the same protection as guide, assistance and service dogs, because the loss that is felt by a family following the death of their beloved companion is the same, if not more.

Draft Packaging Waste (Data Reporting) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 Draft Waste Enforcement (Fixed Penalty Receipts) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2023

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2024 General Committees

[Robbie Moore]

I thank the hon. Member for Newport West for her valuable contribution to the debate. Let me address some of her points and comment on the questions that have been raised.

The first SI makes amendments that will significantly extend the household packaging exemption, but we appreciate that more work may need to be done to make it go further. In developing the definition we have reviewed and engaged heavily with stakeholders, and taken into account the established schemes that have been introduced in other countries. We are not only making sure that this legislation is rolled out here, but working closely in conjunction with the devolved Administrations before the main SI is laid before this House by the UK Government. We are also working closely with stakeholders to ensure that the definition aligns with the policy aims and needs of the sector, while balancing the requirement to create an approach that is both enforceable and fair to local authorities.

The hon. Lady asked why the SI is necessary. It includes important amendments that take account of the deferral of the packaging EPR and the delay of the Scottish deposit return scheme. The amendments also take account of feedback. We have listened to stakeholders throughout the 2023 consultation and other engagement. Not making the amendments would result in, among other things, the Scottish DRS material being unfairly obligated; double reporting by producers; and packaging being classified as household packaging where evidence to the contrary is easily available. That is why the SI is necessary.

On timing, it is understandable that producers are keen to get clarity on fees. Under the extended producer responsibility packaging regulations, producer fee rates will be set and published by the scheme administrator. The fee rates for the 2025-26 financial year will not be known until the spring of 2025, once all the producer packaging data has been received and checked. However, in the meantime, to support producers, we aim to produce illustrative fees as soon as possible.

On the risk of significant non-compliance by producers, I assure the hon. Lady and all Members that we are doing all we can to make sure that producers that are obligated to comply with the regulations are in the best position to do so. We have a comprehensive programme of engagement that is reaching out to more than 10,000 organisations through webinars and newsletters. In addition, we have published guidance on the gov.uk website.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I am particularly pleased that my hon. Friend is tackling fly-tipping, which my constituents have raised with me as a problem, as well as dealing with people dropping litter. What does he expect it to cost businesses to comply with the packaging regulations? Does he expect that to put prices up?

[Robbie Moore]

As I have said, we want to put businesses in the best position possible to have an understanding of the fees that are likely to be imposed on them. That is why we aim to give out indicative fees to businesses later this year, so that they can encompass them within their business models. It will be up to them to consider how that will impact any consumer when rolled out. As a Government, we aim to get the indicative fees out to industry as soon as possible so that they can best forward plan.

The hon. Member for Newport West referred to modulated fees. We are in the process of reviewing and collating the evidence we collected in the autumn of 2023 on the 13 broad types of packaging that will be shortlisted for higher fees, and we will engage further with stakeholders on that topic in the second half of 2024.

Storm Henk

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore]

I work closely with my colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and indeed I have regular conversations with the Minister for Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who is sitting next to me. This is, of course, a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, but, while I am sure that we will continue to have conversations within the UK Government, I am more than happy to share any knowledge or learning with all the devolved Administrations.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Homes, schools and fields throughout my constituency have been flooded. I thank the Secretary of State, the Minister and the chair of the Environment Agency for going there to see the damage for themselves this weekend, and to talk to local farmers. One consistent message has been that the internal drainage board is doing a good and cost-efficient job in clearing the waterways, and I thank it for that, but the other consistent message is that the Environment Agency is not doing the same: it is not clearing the vegetation and debris that have been contributing to the flooding. Will my hon. Friend consider giving funds, and responsibility for the larger waterways, to the IDB, which is doing such a great job, to help protect my constituents?

[Robbie Moore]

It was fantastic to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency at the weekend. I want to put on record my thanks to Jane Froggatt, who represents some of the internal drainage boards, and I commend the work that the boards do. In certain circumstances, they go above and beyond. It is clear, and noted at my end, that a different approach needs to be taken to Lincolnshire—which I know very well—and, as I said during my visit, I am more than happy to review what needs to be done in terms of dredging and removing vegetation from Environment Agency assets and the Delph, which we looked at. It is important that we are not only protecting urban environments, but looking after our farming community and ensuring that the land on which they rely to produce the crops that enable us all to eat the food we want to eat is protected as well as possible.