Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 16th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Like others, I very much welcome the Bill, and I hope it swiftly passes into law so that we can play a full role at Ocean COP1 next year. If we look back beyond recent years, we had people such as John Kerry, and David Miliband as co-chair of the Global Ocean Commission, spearheading efforts on this front, but it then felt as if the issue dropped off the agenda. Next year will be important for ensuring that it becomes a priority again.

I will start by saying why the oceans matter, why they are under threat and why protecting them is so important. As we have heard, oceans are a massive carbon sink. They absorb over 90% of excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases, as well as around 25% to 30% of global carbon dioxide emissions. They host around 80% of all life forms, many of which are still waiting to be discovered. They are under threat from plastic pollution, ocean acidification and the bleaching of coral reefs, and from overfishing on an unsustainable industrial scale. The largest factory trawlers have net mouths of up to 1,200 metres wide and 200 to 300 metres deep that sweep up hundreds of tonnes of fish and seafood in one trip, much of which is bycatch, not for human consumption, that is then discarded. Oceana has called this

“marine deforestation—akin to clear felling an entire rainforest when you’re only looking to harvest one type of tree”.

The Environmental Justice Foundation has done some brilliant reports in the past into slavery and labour exploitation as part of this industrial-scale fishing, particularly in the Thai seafood sector. The fish stocks in territorial waters are depleted, but the further afield those ships go, the higher the risk to the workers that are kept at sea for years at a time.

According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, between 35% and 37% of assessed fish stocks are being fished beyond biologically sustainable levels. That figure is much higher in the high seas and in straddling fish stocks, with two thirds classified as over-exploited or depleted. That includes iconic species, such as sharks, that are a crucial part of the ocean ecosystem. It is estimated that there has been a 71% decline in the ocean population of sharks and rays since 1970. Some 77% of oceanic shark and ray species are threatened with extinction. Roughly 100 million sharks a year are killed by humans through targeted fishing, shark finning and bycatch.

Many of us will have seen “The Blue Planet” series that did such a brilliant job at highlighting, among other things, the threat of plastic pollution and at spurring calls to action. I want to give a shout out to BBC Bristol’s natural history unit, which has been hugely influential, as well as giving great enjoyment to all the people who have seen its programmes. It is a great shame that agreement still has not been reached on a global plastics treaty, and we must keep up the efforts on that front.

I hope that Sir David Attenborough’s latest production, “Ocean”, will have a similar impact when it comes to bottom trawling. As Sir David says:

“What we have done to the deep ocean floor is just unspeakably awful.”

He says that the trawlers tear the seabed with such force that

“the trails of destruction can be seen from space”.

It was reported that some of the material filmed for the programme was deemed too shocking to be shown.

Due to climate change, more than half the world’s straddling fish stocks will shift across maritime borders between economic exclusion zones and the high seas by 2050. In the high seas, fisheries management is much more challenging and stocks are much more likely to be over-exploited, as I said earlier. That makes the need for marine protected areas in the high seas even more important. As we have heard, as well as being an island nation ourselves, because of our overseas territories the UK is the custodian of a fifth of the world’s territorial waters. That means that we are the neighbour, which is the next best thing as a custodian, of much of the high seas, including the Sargasso sea.

Greenpeace is calling on the UK to take a lead in working with our overseas territory, Bermuda, on developing an ocean sanctuary proposal for the Sargasso sea, ready to present it at the first Ocean COP next year. The Sargasso sea is a uniquely biodiverse and important ecosystem. The floating sargassum mats are known as the “golden floating rainforest”, and they are a haven for juvenile fish and turtles, a spawning ground for a rich range of species and an important migratory pathway for humpback whales. As a generator of massive carbon sequestration and oxygen production, the Sargasso sea is vital in tackling climate change and planetary health, but it is at risk of overfishing, pollution and shipping traffic. There is much support in Bermuda for the proposal, and I hope that we will be able to take that forward next year.

Given our strength as a global financial centre, the UK is uniquely well placed to play a role in developing innovative financial instruments that will help finance marine protection, building on what countries like Seychelles and Belize have done with their blue bonds and their debt restructuring. At COP29 last year, we launched our six principles for high integrity carbon and nature markets, and they have been out for consultation this year.

In a world where public sector resources and donations are dwindling, the world is looking to make progress on leveraging private sector finance in a meaningful and sustainable way. That could be of huge benefit to climate-vulnerable coastal countries and small island states, but could also be applicable to funding marine protected areas in the high seas, making it economically viable to protect our seas rather than to plunder them. I have heard that the Treasury may be less enthused about the nature side of these voluntary markets than the carbon side, but I hope that is not the case. I will certainly keep up the pressure on the Treasury to take this forward.

I want to speak briefly about deep-sea mining, to which I am totally opposed. Deep-sea mining could cause irreversible damage to deep ecosystems and a loss of undiscovered biodiversity. I understand that the current UK position, as confirmed by an FCDO ministerial answer last month, is that we back the suspension of deep-sea mining and support a moratorium on the granting of deep-sea mining contracts by the International Seabed Authority. The Minister said that we will not grant licences for exploitation unless

“there is sufficient scientific evidence about the potential impact on deep sea ecosystems, and strong enforceable environmental Regulations, Standards and Guidelines”.

However, it is not clear what powers we will have through this international collaboration to stop other countries issuing such licences, so I hope that the Minister will clarify that in her summing up. I am a little concerned that the measures in the Bill about marine genetic resources will open the door to deep-sea mining. I accept that there is a case for exploring the potential of such resources, if carried out under strong safeguards, but I would resist any attempt to allow deep-sea mining to occur.

Finally, while I welcome international initiatives and, as has been made clear, the Bill addresses areas beyond national jurisdiction, we need to lead by example with stronger protection for our own territorial waters. As has been said, there has been some progress, notably around our overseas territories, but perhaps it is easier to act when those areas are thousands of miles away and do not have the same economic interests. There has been great work around Ascension, Pitcairn and South Georgia, but there is more of a mixed picture around the UK coast.

Dogger Bank in the North sea is one of the largest marine protected areas. Since it was established in 2022, it has benefited from a 98% reduction in bottom trawling, supporting the recovery of marine species like halibut, cod, angel shark and eels. As it says in the UK’s national biodiversity strategy and action plan, all marine protected areas must be well managed, enforced and effective, not paper parks. We could start by moving faster to end all bottom trawling in our marine protected areas.

The recent excellent report “Blue Carbon”, published by the World Wide Fund for Nature, the Wildlife Trusts and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, set out a blue carbon mapping project carried out with the help of the Scottish Association for Marine Science. We are the first country to undertake such mapping. We know about the importance of kelp forests, seagrass meadows and mangroves, but it is the less glamorous sediment on our seabed that is the true hero in carbon sequestration. The report found that 224 million tonnes of organic carbon was stored in just the top 10 cm of seabed sediments and vegetated habitats, and 98% of that was in the sediment, such as the mud.

In my role as Minister for climate, it frustrated me that we talked so much about the role of trees and forests in carbon sequestration, but we did not talk about the oceans at all. I was told that that was because it was difficult to quantify, so this project is a great example. If this is the amount of carbon work that is being done by the seabed around the UK coast, just think about the amount that the seabed of our high seas is doing. We must have action on that at Ocean COP. I hope that the Bill will be enacted very soon, and I look forward to next year’s discussions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

This has been a wide-ranging and important debate on a vital Bill. There have been many valuable and informed contributions, not least from the hon. Members for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) and for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne). The hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race) is rightly proud of the great academic institutions in his constituency, highlighting the important role that UK research plays in the world.

It was a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) making one of the first Back-Bench contributions. She reinforced the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) made about the destruction of the marine environment. I know that she speaks from a position not just of expertise but of passion, and she has shown that over so many years, with a commitment to our oceans and with the work that she has led on.

May I say to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), that she shows why it is so important that we have people in this House with such wide-ranging experience, who have had lives outside this place? She has brought expertise to the debate and I am sure that many of us envy her in what she has been able to do, the intellect that she has applied to the argument and the fact that we can all listen carefully to what she has said.

The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said something important when she talked about marine deforestation and some of the mainstream media shows that had footage that she had heard had been too shocking to show. That represents a real problem in this debate. Are we wrapping this up in cotton wool for some people, to not show exactly what we are trying to deal with? She made the important point that we should not hide from what is going on in the world.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman to an extent. It was reported in The Guardian that some of the footage was deemed too shocking to be shown. I do not know whether he has seen it, but what remains in the film is incredibly powerful. I have read about bottom trawling in the newspapers for a long time, so I knew about it from a factual perspective, but it was only when I saw those images that it was brought home to me how terrible it is.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that important intervention.

The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) raised the importance of mainstream media. We are grateful for her apology to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford for misinterpreting his drive about the importance of the Chagos islands.

It is disappointing that the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), who is no longer in his place, felt that not enough of my colleagues were in attendance, but those of us who were here have stayed here—Mr Speaker has commented on many an occasion that I can often be more than enough. The hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) pointed out how little we know about the oceans. That is an important point. It has often been said that space exploration gets lots of coverage and we talk about it very much—indeed, we are talking about manning the moon again, and maybe using it as a launch pad to go to Mars—yet so much of our own planet is completely unknown and unexplored.

That brings me to the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), who has a genuine interest and expertise. He gave a wide ranging and important speech and made an important point about the ocean being one of the biggest solutions to climate change. He is indeed right that the European economic zones are a legacy from the days when we owned half the world. One of the great achievements of the last Conservative Government is the work we did on the blue belt and on ensuring that we protected important marine environments. I do not know whether he will expand on this in later debates, but I noticed that he did not appear to be fully supportive of giving up on the fisheries from the EU with the EU reset. I wonder whether he may have things to add to that debate at another time, but perhaps now is not the time and place. However, he does make an important point that we can only do what we have to do as a country if we have the ability to do it in those waters.

The way that the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) approached the subject of the Conservative party’s record in this area was a real pity. I am proud of some of the work we did on the blue belt, including working on this Bill, and as we have seen during the debate, there is wide support for it across the House.

The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) pointed out her genuine delight in the fact that this House has so many experts to speak on such an important issue. She echoed the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford on what will happen with the Chagos Bill. I do not want to go into great detail on that, because we are going to be here a long time on Monday evening debating that Bill, but I think she was driving at the fact that the assurances in the Chagos Bill do not go far enough in protecting the blue belt. I welcome her clarification that my party has raised the issue of the blue belt. She comes with expertise and deserves to be listened to when she is raising these important points.

The Minister opened the debate by talking about the urgency and importance of this moment. That is true. When my hon. Friend the Member for Romford spoke, he made some very serious points, not least about how we can ensure that the responsibilities that the United Kingdom has always taken towards marine fisheries do not get overridden if we cannot control our work entirely. He made the point that, in the scheme of things, we must ensure that we do not hand over the ability to other countries to stop us doing that work.

The reality is that—again, I will touch briefly on this because it is not part of the debate—the UN Security Council, set up for a reason, finds it hard to react to what is happening in Ukraine because Russia can override anything with its veto. We must ensure that we have the ability, as a Government and a country, to employ the laws and protections that we need to put in place. We will raise these areas in Committee, even if that is through probing amendments, because we want to ensure that the Bill can do exactly what it intends to do.

The reality of the Bill also comes into some of these situations that we see on the horizon. We know about the opening up of the Arctic, the melting of the sea ice and the opening of the north-east passage, which for many months—certainly weeks—of the year is fully navigable; the ice has gone away by that much. At the same time, we know that President Putin and the Russians have said that there are hydrocarbon resources in that ocean that they want to mine. That would be devastating for the fragile ecosystems that exist in that unique area of the world, which is almost completely untouched.

I had the pleasure back in May of being part of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly visit to Svalbard. The University Centre in Svalbard has dozens of countries, universities, academic institutions and hundreds of nationalities studying that region, climate change and the effect it has on the Arctic, and the effects on ecosystems. It is absolutely vital, as we see the geopolitical tensions forming in areas where they have not been before, that we have those strong protections in place.

Biodiversity Loss

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As always, Ms Rees, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing this debate. I am sure both of us could spend hours in this Chamber going through all the various aspects of biodiversity loss, but I will not repeat what she has said. I agree with almost all of it.

As the parliamentary species champion for the swift, I am very pleased that the hon. Lady mentioned swifts— I know she shares my enthusiasm. All around the country, local swift groups are welcoming their return. The hon. Lady will know that my sister runs the Save Wolverton Swifts group, which had a party in the streets to welcome the swifts back last week. It really is an iconic species, and we must do all we can to restore its habitat.

We are pressed for time, so I want to focus on a few specific questions for the Minister. The Office for Environmental Protection has warned in its annual report that the Government remain largely off track to meet their environmental ambitions: they are on track for a dismal four out of 40 of their environmental targets. Simply put, the conclusion was that it is not clear whether the Government’s plans stack up.

The position is very similar for the Government’s climate plans: they were taken to court just a couple of weeks ago, and once again they lost because their plans are inadequate. There is absolutely no point in waxing lyrical about their ambitions and targets unless there are plans to match it. What I am not quite clear about is what happens when the OEP issues such warnings on the inadequacy of the Government’s plans. Does that mean that DEFRA now has to do better? Who is holding its feet to the fire? Will it require court cases from organisations such as ClientEarth to do so?

I also want to focus on nature-based solutions to climate change. There is huge benefit in restoring biodiversity and helping with carbon sequestration. I echo what others have said about the huge importance of peatlands. Rather than sequestering carbon, as they could be doing, they are currently releasing it into the atmosphere, because they are not being treated properly.

There is also the issue of nutrient neutrality. The natural environment can play a huge role in climate adaptation, with things like rewilding rivers and planting more trees in strategic places. What I am not clear on is where the lead from the Government is. Biodiversity net gain will be crucial, but so will developing credible carbon markets. All these things are co-benefits. I will end on this point: can the Minister tell us whether there is cross-departmental working so that we can ensure investment into nature-based solutions? That will protect those natural environments in perpetuity, I hope.

Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 22nd March 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Spellar]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that; he expresses particularly well his point that trophy hunting is like something from a previous century. Its time has passed. Life moves on and society moves on.

As I was describing, it was interesting in the interviews I did that none of the commentators could respond when I asked, “How can you defend someone who wants to travel a distance to shoot a giraffe, stand on its corpse and bring parts of it back to this country?” Nobody seems to be able to answer that question. I am not saying it was ever right to do that, but what is absolutely clear now is that the British public are certain that they do not want any part of it.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend makes a very valid point. Some in favour of trophy hunting argue that it lends itself to supporting conservation in the country, which seems to me an entirely spurious argument. We have just seen really promising figures on tigers; there are 5,574 in the wild now. That is actually a tiny number; there should be many thousands more, but it shows that conservation efforts can pay off if we focus on certain species. Trophy hunting is not about conservation. As my right hon. Friend said, it is about people shooting animals, taking pictures of themselves parading around the corpses and cutting the animals’ heads off to take home. It is an abhorrent act.

[John Spellar]

I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend has been campaigning on this in Bristol and here in Parliament for many years, from the days when we worked in the Whips Office. She makes a very strong point.

The argument that says, “We are killing these animals in order to save them” is a bit like saying, “We created a desert and called it peace.” I really do not buy into that and, importantly, neither do the British public.

Groceries Supply Code of Practice

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Kirsty Blackman]

rose—

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mark Spencer]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) first, and I will come back to the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy).

[Mark Spencer]

We learned an awful lot from going through the process with the dairy sector. We reviewed the pork sector and some similarities are evident, so we can go through the process much quicker if we find that evidence. The hon. Lady will be aware that we have just concluded a review into the egg sector as well, and there is an ongoing investigation into the fresh produce sector. I encourage those who are working in farming within that sector to contribute to the call for evidence, and to inform the Government of any practices that they may be concerned about so we can consider them.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I was going to make exactly the same point, but since I am on my feet I will ask about scope 3 emissions within the supply chain. Increasingly, because supermarkets need to reduce their own emissions, they are looking to their suppliers. My concern is that smaller suppliers will be disadvantaged because they are less able to do things such as switch to electric vehicles or retrofit their buildings. There is a real danger that supermarkets will stop seeking supplies from them because of that. Is the Minister doing some work on that?

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 18th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Barclay)]

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

The Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill before us today will cement our position as a world leader on animal welfare. It will ban from Great Britain the export of cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and horses for slaughter and fattening, putting a permanent end to this unnecessary trade. I am proud to say that we are a nation of animal lovers. We have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world and we continue to strengthen them. Indeed, the UK was the first country in the world to pass legislation to protect animals and we are currently joint top of the world animal protection index. The Bill builds on our proud record by preventing the unnecessary journeys of animals being exported abroad for slaughter.

We have already delivered a raft of measures to protect and enhance animal welfare. In the past five years alone, we have introduced tougher sentences for animal cruelty through the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 and recognised in law the sentience of all vertebrates and some invertebrates via the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022. We brought into force the ivory ban, one of the world’s toughest bans on ivory sales, and the Wild Animals in Circuses Act 2019 prohibits travelling circuses from using wild animals, in recognition of the intrinsic value of wild animals and the need to respect them.

We continue to go further to improve animal welfare. Just this year, we have brought forward compulsory cat microchipping, and we are banning the keeping of primates as pets. Today marks another step forward in delivering better welfare for the animals in our care, as the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill will end unnecessary journeys abroad for slaughter. Taking advantage of Brexit freedoms, we can now legislate to end this trade, which we were unable to do for so many years due to European Union trade rules.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

If I may have the liberty of saying so, I am sure that Mr Deputy Speaker would be speaking enthusiastically in support of the Bill if he were not in the Chair, because of his commitment to animal welfare.

The Secretary of State has just said that this is a Brexit freedom, and I very much remember it being trumpeted during the Brexit campaign, but that was more than seven years ago. By the time this Bill becomes law, it will be eight years. What has taken him so long?

[Steve Barclay]

I would have thought the hon. Lady would welcome the fact that we are able to legislate. For so many years, Members of this House called for the ability to prevent live exports, but we were not able to do so. Where I agree with her is on Mr Deputy Speaker’s support for animal welfare, which is recognised across the House.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge Members who have championed this important issue over a number of years, which speaks to the hon. Lady’s point. In particular, I recognise my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), who has repeatedly lobbied on this issue and, indeed, in 2016 proposed a private Member’s Bill to amend the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 to allow ports and local authorities to ban live exports.

I recognise my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who also actively championed a ban, including, in 2017, tabling a private Member’s Bill to prohibit live exports. Although her proposals did not make it on to the statute book, they reminded the House of the public concern on this important issue and, indeed, helped to lay the groundwork for the Bill before us today.

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) who has championed this issue both within the Department and within this House. Indeed, there have been numerous debates during which many Members on both sides of the Chamber have spoken passionately about ending live exports, reflecting the strong support in the country for a ban.

I also thank the tireless campaigners whose efforts have helped to raise awareness of this issue among hon. Members and the wider public, particularly the RSPCA and Compassion in World Farming, which have both actively campaigned on this issue over many decades, as well as World Horse Welfare, which was founded in 1927 to stop the export of horses for slaughter.

Live animal exports have been a focus of campaigning by animal welfare charities for more than 50 years. Indeed, in the 1990s, when millions of animals were exported for slaughter each year, several legal challenges sought to ban live exports. These challenges were unsuccessful, not least because, as a member of the EU, we were bound by EU rules on animal welfare during transport, which prevented the House from acting.

Public Sector Food Procurement

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 12th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) on securing the debate. I thought I had missed it last week, so I was pleasantly surprised to see it on the Order Paper again.

The hon. Member mentioned the Government consultation on public sector food and catering that closed on 4 September 2022. Almost ever since then, it has become something of an obsession of mine to chase the Government for a response. The last time I asked, in September, I was told it would be out this year—which means by next Tuesday—so I hope the Minister has good news for us today. I gather that the 126 responses were the reason given for it taking so long. That is not that many, so I hope the Minister can tell us how many people are working on looking at those responses. It should not have taken 15 months to come to a conclusion.

One thing that was consulted on was the idea that 50% of food procured should be locally sourced and/or sustainable. When I chaired the all-party parliamentary group on agroecology for sustainable food and farming, we were very keen to look at what France was doing. It showed that it can be done, and in a country full of farmers, they very much welcomed it. I support that. The leader of my party, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), committed us to it when he spoke at the NFU a while ago, so I am keen to hear from the Minister whether that is still in active consideration.

As I said, I used to chair the APPG on agroecology. In that role, I had the pleasure—it was quite a pleasure—of interviewing the then DEFRA Secretary, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), on stage at the Oxford Real Farming conference. He went down very well with the audience—this was before the Agriculture Act 2020 came in—because it was the first time, I think, that a serving Conservative Secretary of State had been to the conference. This was more the agroecological end of things than traditional farming. One thing on which he got a good response was committing to more support for county farms, peri-urban farming and local farming in general.

As a Bristol MP, I think there is so much potential. We have gold status as a sustainable food city, but we also have food deserts where people cannot access affordable and healthy food, so the idea that through public sector procurement we could become the customers of things that are being grown in Somerset, in Gloucestershire and nearby—we are surrounded by countryside—to an extent to which we are not at the moment seems so much something that should be at the heart of what we are trying to do. That was followed up when I was on the Bill Committee for the Agriculture Act 2020, when the then Minister confirmed that it was very much something the Government were going to do. Unfortunately, I then had a meeting over Zoom—this was during covid—with his successor, and it just seemed like it had dropped off the table all together.

Will the Minister tell us whether he sees county farms and peri-urban farming playing an important role, and what has happened to the land use framework? There is quite a long list of DEFRA things that seem to have disappeared into the ether, but maybe the Minister has just got a very big in-tray and it is somewhere in there. I hope that part of that land use framework will include earmarking what land could be used for development to support this kind of peri-urban farming approach.

I also want to ask the Minister about the horticultural strategy. We do know that it, at least, has been definitely dropped. The strategy would have promoted the growing and consumption of more fresh fruit and vegetables, which the sector was very much pushing for. It was only after I attended a Food Foundation event and was asked if I knew what had happened to it that I tabled a question and found out that the strategy had actually been dropped. The sector had not even been told. In fact, it had been announced via a written question in the Lords, but the sector had then gone on to have meetings with DEFRA officials—there was at least one roundtable —about the proposal after it had been dropped. We know the pressures that fruit and vegetable growers are under; we know the importance of the strategy. Can the Minister explain why that was dropped? I have read the written answers, but they did not do justice to the question.

Finally, I want to briefly talk about school food standards and food poverty. One in four teachers reported that they have been bringing in food themselves for hungry pupils over the last term, while seven in 10 schools have said they are supplying basic food and hygiene items to children. There is the basic issue of not having access to enough food, but we know there is even more of a problem when we get on to healthy food. I congratulate Henry Dimbleby on his excellent work on this issue. I went to his book launch—I think Chefs in Schools, which does excellent work, provided the catering. We know that school food is not up to the nutritional and sustainability standards that we would like to see. In addition, according to The BMJ, in 2020, just 1.6% of packed lunches met school food standards, so there is also an issue with that.

The Government did say at one point that they were going to review the national school food standards. They told me that in response to questions, but later confirmed in response to other questions that they did not feel the need to do so. I absolutely feel, as we have heard, that the Government need to review those standards. We have a lot more information now on the nutritional impact of certain diets, and something that has been mentioned is the impact on behaviour. There was a very interesting study—going back quite a long time now—in young offenders institutions, which showed that once those teenage boys were taken off junk food, their behaviour changed radically. It seems to me, again, to be a bit of a no-brainer: why would we not seek to change their diets if we know we could basically save them from a lifetime spent in the criminal justice system by just doing something as important as feeding them properly?

[Sir Charles Walker]

This will be the last intervention I make. The hon. Lady and I may come from different sides of the argument around eating meat and this, that and the other, but I take her point entirely. The fact of the matter is that there are more than 2 million deer in England. To sustain the number at that level, we need to cull 750,000. We are talking of putting this low-fat, high-protein meat into dog food while people are going hungry. Diets make such a difference. We really do need to be imaginative in how we work with schools and public sector organisations to improve people’s diets.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point entirely, but he has intervened on me just as I was about to say something about plant-based diets in schools, so it was perhaps not the best timing. I would argue, and I think most people would agree, that plant-based diets are healthy and sustainable, and it would be a good thing if people—children, in particular—ate more vegetables, regardless of whether or not they eat them as a side helping on a plate of meat. They do need to eat more fruit and veg—can we all agree on that?

[Sir Charles Walker]

Yes!

[Kerry McCarthy]

Right. According to the national school food standards, one or more portions of veg or salad has to be served as an accompaniment to each meal, and there has to be one or more portions of fruit every day and at least three different fruit and three different veg every week. We can do better than that. There are also requirements for meat and for dairy to be served. We should explore doing what Mayor Eric Adams has done in New York, where plant-based meals are the default option in schools and hospitals. They are not the only option; people can choose to eat meat and fish, but it is just the fall-back option. Uptake of those diets has gone up radically as a result. People have not wilted away and fallen out of their hospital beds due to lack of energy just because they have been eating a few more vegetables. That is worth exploring.

ProVeg UK’s school plates programme works with 55 local authorities and catering companies and is responsible for catering in 6,500 schools. It provides free advice on menus and recipes, and it trains chefs. It says that nearly 12 million meals have been switched to plant-based options since the programme began in 2018. It was actually 4.5 million until 2021, so the uptake has been massive. I am not saying this with an ethical vegan hat on or anything like that; I am just saying that it would be a good way of getting young people to eat more fruit and veg, which would be a good way of supporting fruit and veg growers in this country.

More plant-based meals would help with sustainability, too. I have just returned from the climate change talks at COP, where there were some very interesting discussions. Land use and food systems were meant to be on the agenda at COP for the first time, and I hope that the Minister would support that. At the moment, only 5% of public procurement contracts—across the board, not for just food—require a carbon reduction plan, so I will finish with this question: does the Minister see public sector procurement of food as helping to reduce our carbon footprint?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Spencer]

I think “soon” is the answer that I can give my hon. Friend. We will soon publish the consultation findings, alongside the updated standards and guidance I talked about. We want to showcase the sustainable, high-welfare, quality produce that the public sector can procure. I will probably have to let the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) down and say that we will not deliver before Christmas, but I do not think she will have long to wait after that, because we want to get on with this—we want to procure the best food for our local schools.

I hear the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) assuring us that he is going to procure only local food. If I am being honest, I do not believe him. I hope that the model used by Labour-controlled Exeter City Council, which has denied people the right to have meat in their diet, will not be followed nationally.

[Kerry McCarthy]

It is not meant to all be locally produced; it is 50%. They do it in France. In the Government’s consultation, which closed on 4 September last year, that was one of the things they asked people for a view on. If the Minister thinks it is such nonsense, why did he bother consulting on it?

[Mark Spencer]

My point is that it cannot all be done locally. There has to be a balance. We are committed to improving the amount of food that we produce and procure locally. We want UK producers to be engaged in the system. We are making great progress on that, but we have to do it within the WTO standards, which are internationally recognised within the law. We will do it within those rules, and we will drive the amount of UK produce that is procured in the right direction.

I thank all the people who have taken part in the discussion today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

I can give my hon. Friend a very strong assurance on that front. Supporting British farmers is my No. 1 priority. Indeed, with the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries in the Department, we have someone who has a lifetime’s experience of working as a farmer. We should be proud of the Red Tractor scheme, which is known around the world for being a high-quality mark of British produce. I recognise, however, that concerns have been raised and we will launch a review soon into fairness in the horticulture supply chain, but if necessary, I will not hesitate to use the powers in the relevant Act to introduce legislation to tackle contractual unfairness, wherever that exists.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

6. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero on the impact of climate change on food prices.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Barclay)]

Food prices depend on a range of factors, which have recently included Russia’s war in Ukraine and the subsequent energy price rises. Supporting our world-class farmers and food producers and driving down inflation are top priorities for the Government.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the Secretary of State for his response. The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit reports that energy costs and climate change have pushed up food bills by an average of £605 over the past two years, with climate change driving 60% of that increase. We already import £8 billion-worth of food from countries struggling with extreme weather. Obviously, we want to support those countries on an international level with climate adaptation. In terms of our food security here, will the Secretary of State review his predecessor’s decision to secretly scrap the horticulture strategy, which could have helped domestic growers and made us more resilient to the impact of climate change on food security and food prices?

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Lady raises an important point about the impact of climate change on food prices in the future. That is exactly why the Government passed the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 to help to unlock innovation and strengthen food security by enabling our leading scientists to develop crops that will best resist climate change. It is why the Government published the third national adaptation programme as recently as July, and it is why we have our farming innovation programme—with £270 million of funding—which is focused on driving productivity and ensuring that there is sustainability in the environmental and farming sectors.

Water Companies: Executive Bonuses

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Gentleman is right to be concerned. As I go through my speech, he will hear all the measures that we have put in place for all the water companies, not just United Utilities.

As I said at the beginning, I want to be clear that the current volume of sewage discharged by water companies is utterly unacceptable. They must act urgently to improve their performance so that they can meet both Government and public expectations, but it is because of the monitoring that this Government required the water companies to put in place that we now know what is happening and the scale of the challenge that we face.

We have upped the pressure on the water companies so that, by the end of this year, 100% of all storm sewage overflows will be monitored. We are taking the most ambitious action in water company history to tackle sewage pollution, including using new powers and new responsibilities in the landmark Environment Act 2021, which I was proud to take through Parliament—many of the shadow Ministers obviously engaged with the Act’s passage—and there is also the additional £60 billion storm sewage overflow discharge reduction plan.

Despite saying that they care about our precious water, many Opposition Members did not vote for all these measures so that the people of this country—including you and me, Mr Deputy Speaker—can have the wonderful water and the beautiful environment that we deserve. It is through our measures that we are now holding water companies to account, in a way that has never been seen before, with more investment, stronger regulation and tougher enforcement. We will continue to go further in holding the industry accountable for its actions.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Minister knows perfectly well that we opposed some of these measures during the passage of the Environment Bill because we did not think it was strong enough. The Bill was very weak in places, hence our opposition. Given that the Minister’s constituents are covered by Wessex Water, does she think it is right that the company is asking its customers to pay an extra £150 a year towards funding work on infrastructure, when the chief executive took home pay of £982,000 in 2021-22? I do not think my constituents, who are also customers of Wessex Water, should have to pay that extra money. Does she?

[Rebecca Pow]

That is an important point, and it is why we have made so many changes to the regulator—I will go into detail in a minute. It is quite clear that customers will not be paying for water company bonuses. Ofwat and its board now have very strong powers to oversee all of this.

I am going to go through the points one by one. I will start with more investment. We are ensuring that our regulators have the investment and the powers they need, and we are ensuring that the water companies deliver the infrastructure improvements that we urgently require. Since privatisation we have unlocked over £215 billion of investment in England, with £7.1 billion in environmental improvements by water companies over the period 2020 to 2025. It includes £3.1 billion in storm overflow improvements; and £1.9 billion of that is for the incredible Thames tideway tunnel, which is on track to transform tackling sewage pollution for the people of London. I am sure that our Liberal Democrats present will welcome that, because it is a game-changing project.

In addition, over 800 storm overflow improvements countrywide have been set in motion. They are under way and will be completed by 2025. It is because of all our monitoring that we were able to pinpoint where all this work needs to take place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As toxic sewage spills into our lakes, rivers and seas, it is clear that the Government are up to their neck in it—and this is not a stand-alone scandal. It perfectly encapsulates 13 years of Tory misrule by a Government who do not believe in governing, who see regulation only as a burden and who think that businesses always know best, allowing privatised utilities to make huge profits at their captive customers’ expense and the bosses to line their own pockets, and ignoring the need for investment in our public realm and the infrastructure that we need.

In 2022, as we have heard, not a single river in England was free of chemical contamination, just 14% had “good” ecological status, and 75% of UK rivers pose a serious risk to human health, the single biggest cause of pollution being untreated sewage. However, we need to look at other causes of pollution as well. The Environmental Audit Committee warned in January 2022 of a “chemical cocktail” from plastics, slurry and farm run-off that threatens water quality, and criticised the outdated, underfunded and inadequate monitoring regimes that make it difficult to determine the health of England’s rivers. CHEM Trust welcomed that report as

“a vital call to arms to improve the quality of water in our rivers”,

and called for action to tackle chemical pollution at source.

As we heard from the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), whose frustration was clear, industrial-scale agriculture is also an increasing problem. The River Wye has a massive problem with phosphate pollution linked to intensive poultry production. There are about 20 million chickens in the Wye catchment at any one time, and much of the manure is spread on surrounding fields, with nutrients leaching into the water supply. It is estimated that even if the source of the pollution were removed now, it would take between 10 and 20 years for the soil pollution to be reduced.

For now, however, I will stick to the subject of sewage, in which regard Wessex Water is a particularly bad offender. We have seen numerous cases of sickness among swimmers at popular local wild-swimming spots in areas around my constituency, such as Conham River Park and Warleigh weir. In 2021, Bristol Cable reported that between the beginning of January and the end of August, Wessex Water had dumped raw sewage into our local rivers 14,000 times, and sadly things have not improved: just yesterday, it dumped revolting raw sewage into the River Avon for more than seven hours.

Water companies are supposed to dump untreated sewage only during “exceptional” weather, but as “exceptional” is not even defined, they feel that they can dump untreated sewage whenever it rains—and, of course, in the UK rainy weather is far from exceptional. The BBC found that in 2022 Wessex Water dumped raw sewage into our rivers for 1,527 hours on dry days. That is meant to be illegal, yet Wessex Water, like fellow dry spillers Southern Water and Thames Water, was allowed to keep operating.

I have already mentioned the massive £982,000 take-home pay of the Wessex Water CEO in 2021-22. He has been with the company a very long time—since the 1990s—and if his pay then was adjusted for inflation, he would be on about £120,000, so he has had about a 700% pay rise. As I said, Wessex Water is now looking to its customers and wants to put up bills by £150 a year to pay for planned investment. I would argue that that money should already have been spent on maintaining infrastructure.

Last night’s BBC “Panorama” programme exposed the failures of self-regulation, where water companies get to mark their own homework and cheat the system with ease. It is telling that we had to rely on whistleblowers from the Environment Agency telling “Panorama” what was going on at United Utilities, rather than the Environment Agency taking enforcement action itself. In the last three years—2020, 2021 and 2022—931 serious pollution incidents were reported in north-west England but the Environment Agency went to inspect only six of them. We are not blaming the Environment Agency for that. We know that it is under-resourced, and we know how little respect this Government have for our regulators and the protections they provide. Its environmental protection budget was halved by DEFRA between 2010 and 2020.

We see this time and again, with the Tories railing against red tape and bureaucracy and slashing costs, then wondering why everything has gone to pieces, when in effect they have created a wild west where companies can pollute at will. Companies do sometimes get caught. In 2020, for example, Severn Trent was fined £800,000 for letting 3.8 million litres of raw sewage enter a Shropshire stream, but these fines seem to be little or no deterrent because the companies try to pass the cost on to their captive customer base instead.

As foul waste poisons our waterways, killing fish, destroying habitats, seeping into our soil and making people sick, it is clear that self-regulation is not sustainable. We need water companies to face the consequences of their failures, and that is what Labour is calling for: criminal responsibility. Water bosses should face personal criminal liability for law breaking related to pollution, with severe and automatic fines for illegal discharges. It is time to clean up the filth.

Legislation on Dangerous Dogs

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Nick Fletcher]

I will be coming to many of the points that the hon. Member raises. Hopefully, the Minister can shed some light on them, too.

Both the BVA, when I spoke to its representatives at the London Vet Show, and my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) raised the fact that most fatalities have occurred in people’s houses, rather than when a dog has been out. Obviously, in the house, dogs are not muzzled or on a short lead. They also asked that the Dangerous Dog Act be reviewed and highlighted that section 3 of the Act gives scope for something to be done about controlling dogs. I often say that it is not always new legislation but enforcement of existing legislation that is needed. That also needs to be looked at.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals explained that it wants the Government to slow down the pace of the ban coming into force, mainly because of its implications and consequences. It also raised the fact that it is becoming incredibly difficult to ensure that everyone who owns an XL bully can do what they need to do before the deadline in order to keep their dog. The RSPCA mentioned that it is seeing abandonment and relinquishment of these types of due due to unexpected costs before Christmas.The BVA highlighted that the window for neutering should be extended for another six months for dogs under seven months old, as neutering has an impact on their growth. The RSPCA suggested that there be a campaign on responsible dog ownership but also suggested that stakeholders be brought together to see what dog legislation may look like in the next five years.

In addition to my research, The Mirror is supporting the proposed Jack Lis law, which calls for a different approach to dog legislation that will include all dogs and focus on the breeding, training and sale of dogs.

There is much interest in this topic, and rightly so. I do not think that anyone who signed these petitions should be vilified. Many people understand that something needs to be done, but when experts agree that there are problems, the Government should listen. We have to stop these incidents occurring, that is for sure. If we are to ban the XL bully, the timeline for neutering definitely needs to be looked at, and we must really push for responsible ownership.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I am genuinely conflicted about this. I was on the EFRA Select Committee when it conducted a previous inquiry into the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which was rushed through and not fit for purpose. At the same time, my heart goes out to any family who has been affected by an XL bully dog killing someone, particularly a child. When we talk about responsible dog ownership and training courses or anything like that, my concern is that it will be the owners who are already responsible who take them up, and it is very difficult to spot an irresponsible owner until the dog has caused harm. Has the Committee looked at that?

[Nick Fletcher]

The Petitions Committee has not looked at that, but I believe that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has done. I am coming on to that in the next part of my speech.

DEFRA has had a responsible dog ownership steering group, which published a report and confirmed that the recommendations would be shared later this year. Can the Minister say when they will be shared? The Calgary model was mentioned many times during my research, so we have something that we can copy, and improve if required.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 19th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

Details of the simpler recycling system will be announced shortly, but I can tell the House that it will mean that all local authorities will collect the same materials. Of course, as we have always said, food waste will have to be collected separately. It will also be flexible. This has all been discussed with local authorities.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

4. What steps she is taking to support a healthy and sustainable food system.

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

The Government’s food strategy set out longer-term measures to support a resilient, healthier and more sustainable food and farming system. In May, the Prime Minister’s farm to fork summit built on that with a focus on how we can work together to support a thriving UK food and farming industry. The summit focused on innovation, skills and labour, and on rolling out the new farming schemes to ensure fairness across the supply chain to boost exports and support energy and water security, as well as to reduce red tape.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Every year, post-farm gate, 9.5 million tonnes of food that could have provided more than 15 billion perfectly edible meals is wasted. That also has a massive carbon footprint. Given that DEFRA’s impact assessment concluded that mandatory food waste reporting would result in

“financial benefits to business and significant environmental benefits”

and is backed by many retailers, including Tesco, why have the Government dropped their plans?

[Mark Spencer]

We are working closely with retailers to try to reduce food waste and will continue to do that. The hon. Member will recognise that a vast amount of food waste occurs within the domestic home, and we can do more to help and support consumers to make the most of the food they purchase. We will continue to work with primary producers, retailers and consumers to reduce food waste wherever we can.

--- Later in debate ---

The Attorney General was asked—

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

1. What recent assessment she has made of the adequacy of the Crown Prosecution Service’s written responses to complaints.

[The Solicitor General (Michael Tomlinson)]

Although progress has been made, the CPS acknowledges that there is more to do to ensure that every complaint gets a high-quality response in a timely manner. I will be discussing this very issue with the Director of Public Prosecutions at our next meeting.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am sure the Solicitor General will be aware that the CPS Inspectorate recently conducted an investigation into the response to complaints from victims of crime. It found that almost half were below standard and only a third were “adequate”. Do victims of crime not deserve better?

[The Solicitor General]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her serious and important question. It is of the utmost importance that victims are well supported by all parts of the justice system. Improvements need to be made. It might be worth pointing out that in the Inspectorate’s report, the complainants were looked at, from victims, defendants, witnesses, the police and others. There is clearly some way to go, but the CPS has accepted each and every one of the recommendations.