Draft Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 General Committees

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. These draft regulations seek to lay the legislative foundation for the transfer of many of the powers currently held by the scheme administrator, PackUK, to a private producer responsibility organisation. The PRO will remain an independent body working closely with the devolved nations and the public sector.

In March 2025, Karen Graley was appointed head of the EPR PRO, bringing extensive experience from the Food and Drink Federation. I ask the Minister whether she or her colleagues have met Ms Graley to discuss the issues already identified with the scheme. I note that should the PRO fail to meet the expectations set out in its conditions of appointment, the scheme administrator, acting with the consent of the four nations, may revoke its appointment. Can the Minister reassure us that if such a step were ever required, there would be no adverse disruption to the scheme and no consequential adverse impact on businesses?

The Minister will also be aware that Wildlife and Countryside Link, the Environmental Investigation Agency and Everyday Plastic wrote jointly to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to seek clarification from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on certain aspects of the scheme. They expressed concern that they found the explanatory memorandum to contain insufficient information about intended implementation. Although DEFRA has responded to their three specific questions, I hope the Minister can set out in greater detail the evidence required for the producers.

Under the packaging extended producer responsibility scheme, producers must demonstrate that they have collected and recycled packaging waste that is either reusable or not ordinarily collected by local authorities. As I understand it, there is currently no requirement for that evidence to be third-party verified. Can the Minister explain how the accuracy and reliability of such information will be ensured? I discussed the extended producer responsibility scheme in a recent Westminster Hall debate with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), so the Minister will be aware of my concerns about its general implementation.

The Minister will also be aware that the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), recently chaired a food and farming emergency summit with farmers, fishermen and food producers. One of the issues raised repeatedly was the impact of the EPR scheme on food, drink and hospitality businesses, many of which—local pubs included—feel that they are being unfairly charged twice. Following that summit, and after listening carefully to industry representatives, my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State wrote to the Government urging them to work with the Conservatives on a rapid review of the scheme’s impact on the food, drink and hospitality sectors, including the problem of the double charging of pubs.

That emergency summit took place before the autumn Budget, in which the Government announced that they will consult in early 2026 on proposals to measure the performance and effectiveness of local authorities’ use of the packaging EPR scheme. Has the Minister considered extending that consultation to include stakeholders so that practical issues with the scheme’s operability can be identified sooner?

The amendments contained in these regulations are sensible and show some movement in response to feedback and concern from the frontline. However, they do not address some of the wider concerns raised in our recent debate or those voiced by stakeholders, particularly regarding glass recycling and the consequences for hospitality businesses. Tackling these issues should be a priority for this Government not just in 2026, but as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I am happy to address some of the points that have been raised. I welcome that the official Opposition are broadly supportive of this system, and I will come to their questions in a minute. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton, sounded like she was in favour on principle but not quite in favour of this particular system. That is an interesting approach, but ripping up the whole thing and starting again would not help our recycling rates. I prefer to think that the best way forward is to keep refining what is happening, to see how it works and to see if there are obvious things that we need to change.

These draft regulations are part of that iteration, because they introduce, for example, a change on the closed loop for food-grade plastics, and they shift to a producer-run organisation so that we can integrate how packaging is produced and try to drive up recycling rates. These measures will be responsible for returning over £1 billion to local authorities through fees and structures that enable them to recycle waste collected at people’s doors.

The hon. Member for Epping Forest asked whether Ministers have met industry groups affected by dual use, and I hope to reassure him that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), has done so. We recognise the strength of feeling on the need for a system that can be effectively monitored and enforced, given the impact of pEPR on packaging that remains in scope of fees.

Through our workshops, we are looking at what we can do to refine the system further to deal with the issues of double charging, as the shadow Minister put it. He asked what would happen if the PRO collapsed. PackUK can take control in the event of a catastrophe while it seeks to establish a successor, so that there does not have to be any other system.

We recognise the issues with glass, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli, and the issues with measuring by weight, on which we are in touch with producers. There is also Government support for energy costs in the industry, which will hopefully deal with some of the additional costs that traditional industries are having to shoulder. I hope my hon. Friend accepts that we will continue to keep all of this under review.

To conclude, the amendments made by these draft regulations are necessary to maintain the circular economy for packaging in the UK, to ensure that the key industry request that producers are involved in running the scheme is taken forward, and ultimately to ensure that materials and products are kept in use longer. I trust that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee understand and accept the need for these draft regulations, and accept that the changes will benefit the scheme.

[Dr Hudson]

As I mentioned, the Budget document talked about a consultation on this going into 2026. I raised with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), in the Westminster Hall debate that such consultation needs to be urgent, rather than kicking the can down the track. Can the Minister reassure us that she and her DEFRA colleagues will urgently review the system and act to mitigate any adverse consequences? A consultation is good on paper, but unless it is urgent, stakeholders on the frontline are going to suffer.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

We are trying to take the scheme forward in a positive, iterative way. The consultation is not kicking the can down the road; it is recycling the can to see what we can do to ensure that the system is changed and iterated to fit more effectively, to drive up recycling rates in our economy and to move towards a circular economy. I hope the hon. Member feels reassured by that response.

Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on securing this critical debate.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary beer group, the hon. Lady has heard first hand from many stakeholders, including the British Beer and Pub Association, about how the extended producer responsibility regime is directly affecting businesses. We have heard contributions from Members from across the House today, and indeed from across the United Kingdom, proudly standing up for the businesses in their constituencies and highlighting some of the challenges that the scheme is creating, as well as the challenges facing the hospitality, pub and brewery sector in the United Kingdom in the last year under this Labour Government.

As well as the hon. Lady, we have heard powerful representations from the hon. Members for Woking (Mr Forster), for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—I had to hold myself back from intervening on the hon. Gentleman—for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), who talked powerfully about steel packaging, for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) and for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies).

I am extremely proud of the positive action taken by the previous Conservative Government on packaging and waste. Between 2010 and 2022, the amount of waste going to landfill was successfully reduced by 47%, and the amount of biodegradable waste going to landfill by 46%. In 2015, we introduced a charge on single-use plastic bags, resulting in a 95% cut in sales of plastic bags in major supermarkets. Building on that, we went further and banned the use of single-use plastics such as plastic straws, cutlery and cotton buds, which also restricted businesses’ use of other single-use plastics such as plastic plates.

The last Conservative Government also introduced a tax on plastic packaging containing less than 30% recycled plastic, which encouraged businesses to reduce the use of single-use plastics in their supply chains. Finally, we introduced a simpler recycling collection system, which I am pleased the current Government have taken forward from us, thereby continuing to make recycling more user-friendly, cutting down on confusion and the time spent recycling, and ultimately improving recycling rates, which is good for our environment. These actions were achievable and proportionate.

Importantly, the last Government also laid the correct economic foundations to make those changes and supported businesses—which, I have to say, stands in contrast to what we heard yesterday when the Chancellor delivered her autumn Budget. Many Members here joined me to speak in this Chamber in May, when we had a Westminster Hall debate on glass packaging and the EPR scheme. Back then, I raised my concerns with the Minister about the economic situation and spoke about how, when introducing measures that place costs on businesses, the Government have a responsibility to consider whether this is the appropriate time to impose new burdens on businesses. The British Retail Consortium has said that retailers support the “polluter pays” principle, but it is concerned that the levy will not deliver value for consumers in these challenging economic times—times made far worse by this Labour Government and their mishandling of the economy, as we saw in the run-up to, and the delivery of, yesterday’s retrograde Budget.

The hospitality industry is a key growth sector. A June 2023 report by Ignite Economics, which was commissioned by UKHospitality, found that, for every pound that the UK hospitality industry directly contributes to GDP, it creates a further 58p indirectly and a further £1.30 when including the induced impact. That report also outlined that between 2016 and 2023, hospitality increased its annual economic contribution by £20 billion, to £93 billion. Furthermore, since 2016 employment in the sector has risen to 3.5 million, making hospitality the third largest employer in the country. Finally, hospitality contributed £54 billion in tax receipts to the Treasury last year.

Unfortunately, it appears that this Government do not understand that higher costs and taxes burden businesses and can cause them to close, leading to job losses and destroyed livelihoods. Since the autumn Budget last year, figures published in August of this year show that two hospitality venues are closing every day—including over 100 pubs and restaurants.

Turning again to glass, which is a key reason behind this debate, glass packaging is 100% recyclable—and infinitely recyclable, meaning it can be recycled again and again without losing quality. The previous Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), received a joint letter from the British Beer and Pub Association, British Glass Manufacturers’ Confederation, Scotch Whisky Association, WineGB, Wine and Spirit Trade Association and UKHospitality. The letter warned the Government about the “numerous economic headwinds” that businesses are facing, and highlighted that, while glass represents only 5% of the volume of containers placed on the market, the glass charges cover approximately 30% of the scheme’s cost. The fees are much higher for glass than any other materials, at 10p per average bottle of wine and 17p for every average bottle of spirits, eight times as high as equivalent EU schemes. Indeed, those organisations said in a joint statement:

“There is a risk that without action from the UK government to reduce these fees and move to meaningfully support businesses rather than restrict them, the scheme will result in producers switching to less sustainable materials and that many producers will be charged twice—further restricting investment into the economy.”

Does the Minister agree that that is clearly not how a circular economy should run?

The Minister may be familiar with Mermaid gin and its iconic bottles, which are so beautiful that some companies have upcycled empty bottles into drinking glassware. The Isle of Wight Distillery, which produces Mermaid gin, has said that bottles were designed to be reused and returned to the circular economy. As their compliance and sustainability manager noted,

“it would actually be cheaper to put our liquid into plastic bottles.”

Does the Minister agree that no environmental or recycling policy, however well-intentioned, should end up incentivising companies to think about switching to packaging that is actually less environmentally friendly?

Furthermore, in an article published 31 October by Food Manufacture, Josh Pitman, managing director at sustainable packaging firm Priory Direct, is quoted as saying that he is still receiving hundreds of queries from its over 21,000 customers who do not understand EPR and what they need to do. Mr Pitman outlines how his firm has effectively acted as “EPR customer service” and is quoted as saying that

“there appears to be a lack of clear, helpful guidance and limited proactive engagement with affected businesses from government, aside from some overly exclusive and expensive events featuring official spokespeople.”

What action will the Minister take to provide clearer and more accessible guidance to affected businesses?

The Minister may also be aware that One Water, a water brand that seeks to provide clean water and sanitation to communities around the world, has warned that EPR is placing a disproportionate burden on compliant companies, with the scheme estimated to cost the firm £140,000 in 2025. It is estimated that the scheme has already contributed to a £400,000 loss in glass product sales, mostly through lost hotel, bar and restaurant sales. How will the Minister work with stakeholders to ensure that compliant companies are not disproportionately affected?

Climbing food prices, record levels of farm closures, two pubs or restaurants closing a day and business confidence at a 15-year low, as well as the awful costs of the family farm tax—even before it has fully come into force—outline why we are currently in a food and farming emergency. As the Minister may know, last week the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), hosted a food and farming emergency summit to ask farmers, fishermen and food producers what urgent measures they need to survive the next 12 months. The EPR was raised as a key issue that is causing the sector significant concern because food, drink and hospitality businesses, including local pubs, are currently being unfairly charged twice.

Following that summit, and having listened to the measures the industry said are needed, my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State wrote to the Secretary of State to ask the Government to work with her on the industry’s call for a rapid review of the impact of the Government’s EPR scheme on the food, drink and hospitality sectors, including through the double charging of pubs, about which we have heard many times today. I hope that the Minister will consider the merit of that request, which came directly from those attending the emergency summit.

I noted in yesterday’s Budget that the Government will: consult in 2026 on the extended producer responsibility and proposals to measure how often and how well local authorities use fees; appoint a producer responsibility organisation by March 2026 to give industry a role in the scheme’s operation; and consult on reforms to the packaging waste recycling note system. Perhaps the Minister will repeat that in due course. That is all well and good, but the sector needs urgent action now to ensure that the EPR system is fit for purpose and that our fantastic food, drink, retail and hospitality sectors are protected and encouraged to thrive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

I thank my hon. Friend for his follow-up questions. Several colleagues have raised the issue of cost being calculated by weight and not by unit, but waste management costs are largely driven by weight. We have taken into account other factors that influence collection costs, including the estimated volume of each material in bins and collection vehicles. Glass is a heavy material with a low resale value. A unit of glass packaging costs more for a local authority to manage as waste than an item made up of more lightweight and high-value material. Our recycling assessment methodology changes are published on defra.gov.uk, so people can see the changes that we are proposing to bring in next year and how we are ramping up the fees payable for less recyclable packaging.

Reuse and refill of packaging provides a real opportunity for economic growth and job creation. Earlier this year, GoUnpackaged produced economic modelling that made a compelling case for scaling up reuse in UK grocery retail. That work showed end-to-end system cost savings of up to £577 million a year, highlighting the economic viability of reuse in the UK. In response to that research, major grocery retailers have committed to working together to scale reusable packaging systems. Innovate UK has commissioned a scoping study to develop the blueprint for the first wave of this bold multi-retailer reuse scheme, so change will be coming in this sector pretty fast.

[Dr Hudson]

The Minister is talking about economic viability. I mentioned that the Government said in the Budget yesterday that they will consult on the EPR scheme, and she has repeated that. The Conservatives are calling for an urgent review. A consultation is not good enough; proverbially, that just kicks the steel can down the track. Will the Government commit to an urgent review so that businesses do not suffer in the coming months?

Flood Risk and Flood Defence Infrastructure: North-west England

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) on securing this important debate and allowing us to address the important issue of flood risk and flood defence infrastructure in the north-west. We have heard powerful contributions from across the House today: from the hon. Members for Warrington South, for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), for Burnley (Oliver Ryan), for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt), for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane).

The hon. Member for Warrington South started off by highlighting the key points about the mental health impacts of flooding and the anxiety and trauma that people face. As we face ever more extreme weather, it is right that we discuss the Government’s role in flood prevention, preparedness and management. The devastation brought in the past two years by Storms Babette, Kieran and Henk is a grim reminder that vigilance and forward planning remain essential. When thinking about the north-west, we remember the catastrophic impacts of Storm Desmond in 2015. Across the north-west and beyond, families, farmers and business owners know all too well the havoc that flooding brings to bricks and mortar but also the livelihoods and mental health of those living in fear of the next storm. Just this weekend we have had another named storm: storm Claudia. My thoughts go out to the people affected by the flooding, especially in Monmouth. As I said in the Chamber in the urgent question to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we cannot overstate the mental health impacts of flooding events and on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I pay tribute to our emergency services, the Environment Agency, local authorities and volunteers who demonstrate extraordinary dedication time and again.

However, our compassion for those affected must be matched by decisive action. The previous Conservative Government took the responsibility of flood resilience extremely seriously. Between 2010 and 2020, four Conservative-led Governments protected more than 600,000 properties from flooding. Our record includes a £2.6 billion investment in flood defences between 2015 and 2021, followed by a further £5.2 billion commitment in 2020. We introduced the £100 million frequently flooded allowance and set out a comprehensive policy statement containing 40 practical actions and five ambitious policies for a more flood-resilient Britain.

Equally, the establishment of Flood Re created an essential safety net, making insurance viable for hundreds of thousands of homeowners. Today, I urge the Minister to build on that by expanding the eligibility. Many small businesses remain excluded, particularly where people live above their shop, and properties built after 2009 are ineligible. Will the Minister commit to reviewing those restrictions to enable fairer access to affordable flood insurance?

We Conservatives recognise that in our rural communities, flood management and environmental stewardship go hand in hand. Through the environmental land management schemes, we rewarded farmers for natural flood management. Farmers across the north-west and across the country have embraced these schemes, restoring wetlands and investing in sustainable land management, which not only reduces flood risk, but improves biodiversity, captures carbon and enhances soil health. Innovative tree-planting programmes, with the right tree in the right place, and river re-wiggling are brilliant examples of natural flood management.

I ask the Minister to confirm that these actions will continue to be funded under ELMS and that this Government remain committed to supporting nature-based solutions as part of our national flood defence strategy. Regrettably, many farmers and communities are now anxious and uncertain. They have been watching this Labour Government abolish the farming resilience fund, which was a lifeline for mental health, and introduce their heartless family farm tax—all at a time when many are still repairing the damage from last season’s storms.

The flood resilience taskforce was designed to co-ordinate national response and readiness, yet the answer to my parliamentary question shows that it has met only infrequently since Labour took office. Can the Minister tell us what tangible outcomes the taskforce has achieved so far? Given the increased frequency of severe storms, the taskforce must be proactive. Will it start to meet more regularly than at quarterly intervals?

I want to acknowledge the charities that provide vital support to those affected, such as YANA—You Are Not Alone—and the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution, Yellow Wellies and the Farming Community Network. The impact of flooding is not only physical or financial, but deeply emotional: the anxiety of waiting for the next storm, the trauma of seeing homes and businesses lost and the long path to recovery all leave scars that last for years. Too often, that is ignored. I ask the Minister what steps the Government are taking to deliver holistic support for flood victims not just in the immediate aftermath, when the water subsides and the blue lights leave, but for the long term.

In summary, communities who face the threat of flooding need certainty. They need reassurance that preventive measures will be sustained, that robust support is available when disaster strikes, and that their physical and mental wellbeing is taken seriously. I very much hope that the Minister will use this debate to provide that clarity and to guarantee that the Government will stand by our rural and urban communities, protect funding for flood defence and address the toll, both physical and mental, that flooding continues to inflict on our country.

Illegal Waste: Organised Crime

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

My thoughts are with those affected by the floods and by Storm Claudia. We cannot overstate the mental health impact of these events, and I pay tribute to the emergency teams and volunteers for the work that they do when we need them most.

All Members from across the House will have had incidents in their constituencies of fly-tippers dumping waste; sadly, we have seen serious cases in my constituency of Epping Forest. Fly-tipping is a blight on communities, and the shameless people who do it should be punished to the full extent of the law. The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) is right to raise the issue of the shocking illegal waste dump in his constituency, in which the waste was stacked over 10 metres high. It is positively frightening to think of the effects that will unfold for the environment, ecology and wildlife.

The Labour Government’s action so far on dumping and fly-tipping has been somewhat lacklustre, despite the fact that 36 of the 50 local authorities with the highest fly-tipping rates—a staggering 72%—are Labour-controlled. What are the Government doing to help join up police forces to tackle this issue? In the case of huge, catastrophic dumps, such as the one in Oxfordshire that we are discussing, what support do the Government give the Environment Agency and the local authority? Will they work with the Home Office, the Cabinet Office and the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government to tackle this? What analysis of reform are they proposing to the Environment Agency? Would they consider a review, as we have proposed? With police numbers dropping under Labour, how do the Government propose that rural and, indeed, urban police forces tackle fly-tipping more effectively? With regard to this catastrophic Oxfordshire case, are the Government conducting an assessment of the potential public health and environmental impacts of this horrific waste dump?

[Emma Hardy]

I point out to the hon. Gentleman that this Government increased funding for waste enforcement by the Environment Agency by 50%, after that funding had been frozen for years under the previous Government. Not only are we increasing the funding to the Environment Agency, but we are going much further. We are reforming the carrier, broker and dealer regime by moving waste management and transport from being subject to a light-touch system to coming under the environmental permitting regulations. We are reforming the rules for waste permit exemptions. We are using digital waste tracking, so we can see where the waste ends up. We are looking at extended producer responsibility for packaging, to reduce the amount of pollution and what needs to go into the waste system, and at reforms to ensure simpler recycling. My hon. Friend the nature Minister has, ever since being appointed, been working hard to deal with the legacy that she inherited of problems in the waste environment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

Food security is national security, and we are in the middle of a food and farming emergency created by this Labour Government’s policies. From their heartless family farm tax to the closure of vital support schemes, they are damaging farming’s ability to thrive and harming rural mental health. That is only being made worse nationwide, including in my constituency of Epping Forest, by plans for excessive solar development that risk prime food-producing land being taken away. When will the Government stop this senseless assault on our green belt and countryside, and start putting solar in the right places, such as on brownfield sites and rooftops? When will they start to reverse these damaging policies so that our fantastic farming sector has a fighting chance of being preserved for future generations?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

It sounds as though the shadow Minister thinks that the entirety of agricultural land will be covered in solar. I have already said that it will be 0.4% by 2030, and it provides farmers with extra income. We have a national planning policy framework that prioritises using lower-quality land for such things. He says that he wants solar power on rooftops—well, we are doing that too.

Draft Environmental Protection (Wet Wipes Containing Plastic) (England) Regulations 2025

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 General Committees

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Desmond. I thank the Government for bringing these draft regulations to us today.

As members of the Committee will be aware, the Conservative Government set out their ambition to ban the most problematic plastic waste products in their 2018 resource and waste strategy for England. Action was taken to prohibit the supply of single-use plastic straws, plates and cutlery, plastic-stemmed cotton buds and drinks stirrers. In addition, that Government introduced a successful single-use carrier bag charge policy, which by 2024 had reduced the number of bags given out by the main supermarkets by over 98%.

The resource and waste strategy outlined that to ban products, it must be considered an appropriate action and there must be sustainable, plastic-free alternatives. It was under that premise that in April 2024, the Conservative Government announced their intention to ban wet wipes containing plastic, which were quite rightly identified as a significant contributor to plastic pollution in rivers and oceans, with harmful microplastics entering that environment. I note the Minister’s comments about the impact that that has on the environment and the animals and wildlife therein.

That announcement from the Conservatives was particularly welcome to me as someone who has long called for us to tackle the scourge of plastic pollution in our rivers and seas. In the last Parliament, I sat on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which shone a spotlight on the scourge of plastic waste through its specific inquiry and report into the matter. It recommended, among other things, the banning of plastic waste exports.

I pay tribute to the Conservative Environment Network, of which I am a member, which has long called for action on plastic pollution in our waters and which was instrumental in helping to shift the dial and lead us to where we are today. With the timing of the election last year, the previous Government did not have the opportunity to lay these regulations. I am pleased that the new Government have brought them before us today. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Putney for her hard and concerted cross-party work in this area.

The regulations make sensible exemptions, including for medical and industrial uses, to ensure that where wet wipes containing plastic are necessary and there are no viable alternatives, they can still be supplied. In a 2022 article for the National Health Executive, Professor Jean-Yves Maillard, professor of pharmaceutical microbiology at Cardiff University, highlighted the medical reasons that plastic is still required in wet wipes. He said that if the plastic, which is loaded with detergents, cleaning agents and in some cases powerful disinfectants, is removed,

“you’re left with a less effective, less useful wet wipe”,

which has

“real-world consequences for patient care and patient safety in healthcare.”

The Government have noted that most manufacturers have already commenced the transition to producing plastic-free wipes. It is important that these regulations do not limit access to plastic wet wipes where they are still required. What assessment has been made of the effect of the regulations on the supply and cost of plastic wet wipes for medical or clinical environments and other settings where plastic wet wipes are still required due to there being no viable alternatives? We should still aim to become plastic-free, even in professional products, but we are not quite there yet. When do the Government anticipate that full transition will be possible? When will effectiveness in the medical, clinical and scientific environments no longer be affected?

I hope that the Minister can provide reassurance on how the enforcement powers will work during the transition period. Will she confirm that the enforcement powers will not be used disproportionately? Will she confirm that the regulations are not intended to prohibit or penalise members of the public who have an existing stock of wet wipes at home and want to use them up? Will the Minister publish a table of enforcement action by councils, to provide transparency on how councils are interpreting and enforcing the regulations?

Given that the regulations have attracted criticism from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, what steps have been taken to address that Committee’s concerns? Although it is right that action is taken to limit unnecessary sources of pollution, we must avoid unintended consequences. I hope the Minister can provide clarification and reassurance.

Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

This fund is a weak apology from a Labour Government who, this year, have sold out the UK fishing industry. It is a mere sticking plaster—a rushed one, at best—that ignores the proportion of fish caught in different parts of these isles, involves the devolved Administrations poorly, and ignores evidence-based delivery and logic. This fund is Labour trying to buy off the UK fishing fleet, due to its disastrous 12-year deal with the EU; the deal is three times longer than the deal Labour sought. It prevents Britain from setting annual fishing quotas, as other independent coastal states do. Fishing organisations have called the deal a “horror show” for fishermen. Will the money be front-loaded and spent where it will have the greatest benefit for industry and coastal communities? What input will fishing organisations and representatives have in ensuring that the fund is spent in the right place?

Fishing is not just about the fish caught; it is also about the people and marine wildlife involved. Can the Government explain how the fund will support fishers’ mental health and efforts to protect marine wildlife, such as by ending bycatch? There is not enough detail for the industry to plan. How will the fund be delivered, how is it being targeted to support the fishing industry, and how are the Labour Government supporting the next generation of fishermen and women with the fund?

This fund is an example of the Labour Government trying to buy off the industry with a sticking plaster, rather than ensuring that the best deal for the British fishing industry is the one that they negotiate with the EU.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

The fund is about long-term transformation and partnership. We want to modernise the fishing sector, support coastal regeneration and build resilience in the industry across the UK. For that reason, we will co-design the fund with local communities and the industry. I am not able to answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions in detail at this precise moment, because we seek to co-operate with those who will be beneficiaries. When I am in a position to make further announcements, I certainly will.

Bovine Tuberculosis Control and Badger Culling

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I first declare my professional and personal interest as a veterinary surgeon and a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for her thoughtful opening of this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I have a huge amount of respect and admiration for her as a passionate advocate of, and champion for, animal welfare. I also thank the 102,458 signatories to the petition, including the 143 from my constituency of Epping Forest.

We have heard many contributions from across the House today about many of the tools in the toolbox for tackling bovine tuberculosis. We have heard from the hon. Members for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), for St Ives (Andrew George), for Worcester (Tom Collins) and for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume). Some of the key elements that came out in those contributions were the mental health impacts of this disease—I will touch on that later in my speech—and the different tools that are currently available to us, or are being developed, to tackle the disease. No particular tool is perfect, but we need to be looking at a combination of tools in the toolbox.

I think we can all agree that, as we have heard, bovine tuberculosis has devastating consequences, and at present there is no single method that, in isolation, is perfect for combating it. During this debate it has been encouraging to hear colleagues from across the House reiterate the fundamental key aim, which is that we all want to eradicate bovine TB. That aim should unite all stakeholders, including farmers, animal welfare groups, scientists and veterinarians. Loud and clear in this debate is the importance of animal welfare—the welfare of the cattle and also the badgers.

As we have heard, there are various numbers for the cattle that are slaughtered, but many thousands are slaughtered each year in the UK as part of the effort to eradicate this awful disease. Equally, there are different levels for the cost, but it is estimated that the cost to the UK taxpayer is £150 million per year, with additional costs falling on the cattle sector itself.

Bovine TB takes a terrible toll on farmers, leading to the loss of highly prized animals and, in the worst cases, entire valued herds. It has devastating impacts on farming businesses up and down the land, and as we have heard across the Chamber it has significant effects on the mental health of everyone involved.

In the last Session, I was a member of the EFRA Committee and triggered an inquiry and report on rural mental health. Some of the most powerful evidence we took was from the veterinary and farming sectors about the mental health impacts on farmers and other workers, including vets, from bovine TB. The stress and anxiety around the testing of a herd, the trauma and consequences of having positive reactors in a herd, and the implications and outcomes of infection in a herd are devastating. We cannot overstate the loss of animal life and the human emotional impact that result from infectious disease outbreaks in farming.

My experiences as a veterinary surgeon in the foot and mouth crisis in 2001 are a huge part of my journey to this place as a Member of Parliament. I saw sights then that I never want to see again in my lifetime.

Bovine TB is a very complicated situation, with complex epidemiology that, I am afraid, still very much implicates wildlife reservoirs such as badgers in the spread of the disease. The disease can be spread between cattle, from cattle to people—it is important to realise it is a zoonotic disease—and between cattle and badgers. The latter transmission can be from cow to badger and vice versa. The review for the Government by Godfray in 2018, which was updated in August this year, clearly states that there is transmission to and from badgers and cattle, and that the presence of infected badgers poses a threat to cattle herds. The Godfray review also emphasised the impact that the disease has on the welfare and wellbeing of farmers and their families—a discussion we have heard today.

In October 2023, NFU Cymru released the results of a survey it had conducted. Of the 507 farmers who had completed the survey, 85% said bovine TB had negatively impacted their mental health or the mental health of someone in their family. Over 93% said they were extremely concerned or very concerned about bovine TB. The 2025 update to the Godfray review also took time to stress the significant research undertaken on bovine TB and its mental health impacts, and recommended that

“those dealing directly with farmers in a regulatory or advisory capacity, received basic mental health first aid and suicide awareness training.”

I strongly support that recommendation and very much urge the Government to work to implement it as soon as possible, in addition to other, similar recommendations that we made in our EFRA report on rural mental health.

As we have heard today, there are significant challenges with the testing for and diagnosis of bovine tuberculosis. Testing is so important, and more work is needed on the optimal tests for the disease, taking into consideration both sensitivity and specificity. There is a debate about the strengths and weaknesses of the currently used single intradermal comparative cervical tuberculin—SICCT—test. Godfray talks about the move to the more sensitive single intradermal cervical tuberculin—SICT—test. Indeed, the British Veterinary Association also talks about the potential roll-out of the interferon-gamma test as a supplement to the SICCT. Those diagnostic tests are just one tool in our toolbox to control and eradicate bovine TB.

During the tenure of the previous Conservative Government, in a major scientific breakthrough, the Animal and Plant Health Agency developed a companion candidate test—the so-called DIVA test—to detect infections among vaccinated animals, and differentiate a vaccinated animal from a naturally infected one, and the hon. Member for St Ives spoke about that test. That major breakthrough brought us closer to being able to strategically vaccinate cattle in England against this insidious disease but, as we have heard, we are not quite there yet with that test. I urge the Government and the Minister that this must remain a huge and urgent priority, and I hope she will update us on the progress of the field trials and roll-out of that vital tool.

The previous Government drove forward an ambitious strategy to eradicate bovine TB in England by 2038. That strategy set out a range of evidence-led interventions to tackle the disease in both cattle and wildlife, including by strengthening cattle testing and movement controls; introducing new help for herd owners to improve biosecurity measures on farms and manage down the risk of bringing the disease into their herds; and supporting the deployment of badger vaccination. I cannot stress enough how important biosecurity measures are in the control of this disease, just as they are for many other infectious diseases, as we have heard in the debate, and that too was emphasised by the Godfray review and by the British Veterinary Association.

I cannot pass the word “biosecurity” without stressing that this issue is another clear demonstration of how crucial it is that our biosecurity is firing on all cylinders, and that the APHA is fully equipped at the forefront of the UK’s fight against animal disease outbreaks and their potentially devastating consequences. After pressing the Government no fewer than 17 times in this Parliament to fully fund the redevelopment of APHA’s headquarters in Weybridge, I am relieved that their national security strategy committed £1 billion to do so. I welcome that major commitment from the Government, which continues the work started by the previous Conservative Government.

However, that £1 billion, combined with the £1.2 billion provided by the previous Conservative Government in 2020, still leaves us with a shortfall of £400 million from the £2.8 billion that the National Audit Office outlined is required. The current plans mean that the redevelopment will not be complete until 2034, with interim laboratories not in place until 2027-28. The 2025 update of the Godfray review explicitly concludes that a “lack of investment” in the APHA, and in DEFRA more widely, is still limiting our control of bovine TB. That needs to be addressed with urgency.

Our wider short-term biosecurity is equally vulnerable, as outlined this year in the alarming findings of two new reports by the EFRA Committee. The “Biosecurity at the border: Britain’s illegal meat crisis” report stated that seizures of illegal meat imports have soared from 164 tonnes in 2023 to 235 tonnes in 2024. If we think about the amount that we are not detecting, it is a frightening statistic. Meat being handled in poor sanitary conditions is already creeping through into our food chain. As with bovine TB, the EFRA Committee’s reports note that a key part of this problem is a lack of strategic resourcing by DEFRA, such as DEFRA currently funding only 20% of the Dover port authority’s operational coverage, which is only made worse by poor data collection and sharing at present.

All of that is against the worrying backdrop of the worldwide biosecurity context, with foot and mouth disease outbreaks this year in Germany, Hungary and Slovakia; African swine fever spreading across the European continent; and avian influenza, bluetongue virus and, as we are discussing today, bovine TB very much with us in the United Kingdom. Those are critical and grave threats, and we cannot afford any complacency by any Government of any political colour, so I urge the Government to carry on really focusing on biosecurity. I shudder to think of the consequences if this situation is not improved as a matter of urgency. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what the Government are doing about the biosecurity situation in her response.

We have heard about vaccination of cattle today, and another vital tool in the toolbox is vaccination of cattle against TB. At present, cattle are starting to be vaccinated with the cattle BCG vaccine, which is based on the human BCG vaccine—a weakened strain, which does not cause disease. However, the BCG does not give 100% protection against the disease. On its own, that particular tool is not the silver bullet; it needs to be used in combination. As Godfray states, the development of a successful BCG/DIVA product is still not there and still not guaranteed, so we need to make sure that it is scaled up and rolled out at pace. Therefore, cattle vaccination should not be considered as the end result, but as complimentary to a comprehensive testing and surveillance programme.

It is also important to highlight efforts to vaccinate the wild badger population. Practically that is, as one can imagine, a much more difficult job than vaccinating cattle. As Godfray states, the vaccination of badgers can help, but it may take over a decade based on current approaches. The Government launched a national badger population survey in February, and further surveying is scheduled to resume later this year to estimate badger abundance and population recovery. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify when the results of those surveys will be published.

The last Government supported efforts to control the spread of the disease, and a new version of the ibTB mapping tool was launched, which is enabling farmers to access information on TB-free farms and facilitate safer trading.

Unfortunately, this year’s update of the original Godfray review has concluded that

“there is only a small chance of meeting the target without a step change in the urgency with which the issue is treated and the resources devoted to eradication.”

Sadly, we again are being warned that a lack of resourcing when it comes to animal welfare is an obstacle to doing what we need to do. That must change.

Moving forward, strategies to eradicate the disease must focus on vaccination. However, until that can be done at the speed and scale required, other control methods are still required. That includes the use of culling in the wildlife reservoir population of badgers, which has been shown to be an effective method of controlling the spread of the disease. We have had debate about that today.

Part of ensuring that culling is undertaken as necessary is ensuring that, behind alternative tools such as vaccination, we have the body of evidence necessary to give us the clearest possible picture of their effectiveness, strengths and limitations. The National Farmers Union and the British Veterinary Association have emphasised the need for this evidence, particularly when it comes to the use of vaccination and its impact on herd incidence. That can not only have benefits in terms of how vaccination could be used as a potential exit strategy or to stop disease spreading into new areas, but could give confidence to farmers that alternatives to badger culling can be effective and motivate those with livestock at risk of bovine TB to take part in Government measures, particularly in the light of the fact that, as we have discussed today, the Government have announced that they intend to end the badger cull by the end of this Parliament.

When it comes to information collection and sharing, both the Godfray review and the National Audit Office have stressed the disappointing progress made on the livestock information transformation programme, which drives livestock traceability. The Godfray review’s updated publication this year found that speeding up progress on that programme is essential to eradicating bovine TB by 2038. The National Farmers Union notes that this is a huge opportunity for the industry to unlock a wealth of additional information; I urge the Government to look at how the benefits of that can be unlocked as soon as possible in the essential task of data gathering.

The Labour Government’s ending of the badger cull seems a high-stakes gamble and does not appear to follow all the science or the evidence. For example, the study by Downs et al. published in 2019 found that after four years of culling, reductions in TB incidence rates in cattle herds were 66% in Gloucestershire and 37% in Somerset, relative to comparison areas. In 2024, Birch et al. found that, in a study from 2013 to 2020, the herd incidence rate of TB decreased by 56% up to the fourth year of badger control policy interventions.

[Andrew George]

I am repeating myself, but the hon. Gentleman must understand that those research papers were questioned heavily as, during the period over which the statistics were gathered, they were not based on the same baseline nor on the same system as cattle testing at that time. Therefore, they did not compare like with like. That was very heavily questioned at the time, and it was never satisfactorily resolved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Hudson]

I respectfully disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The Birch et al. study of 2024 looks at that issue in depth. Indeed, if we look at some of those scientific studies criticising the badger cull, the Government’s DEFRA chief scientific adviser and the chief veterinary officer queried the statistical methodology of those. We can have a long debate about the methodology of those papers, but Godfray himself, and the expert panel reconvened by the new Government, looked at a lot of the evidence, which shows that there is still a role in some way for badger control. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I will carry on.

The previous Government were clear that they did not want or intend to continue badger control indefinitely. No one wants to keep going with it forever. However, until all the tools in the toolbox—we have heard today about many of those tools, and they are not all there yet—are fully developed and up to speed, His Majesty’s Opposition believe that, sadly, badger control needs to be kept in that toolbox. I know that will disappoint many stakeholders watching this debate and many people in the Public Gallery, but we must try to be dispassionate and follow the science. One of the key take-homes from the Godfray review was that the polarisation of the role of the wildlife reservoir and the badger in this debate, and the fact that it has split people into one view or the other, has made it very difficult for everyone to analyse the exact risk and the best control mechanism.

The British Veterinary Association states that when badger culling is deployed, it

“should be deployed in a targeted, effective and humane manner only where cull design is based on the best available evidence and mitigates against the ‘perturbation effect’”,

which we have heard a little about today.

The National Farmers Union states that to tackle the disease effectively and combat transmission through all routes we must retain access to all tools, and their implementation must be driven by science and evidence.

More widely, on rural issues, this Labour Government have already shown us that sometimes they do not follow the evidence or data in policy decisions for farming and rural communities. Just look at their retrograde approach to taxation on farms, ignoring the devastation that the family farm tax will have on the very livelihood and survival of rural businesses, and choosing to add to the pressures on farmers’ pockets and wellbeing, rather than providing them with the support they need. I too urge the Government to reverse the policy as a matter of urgency—something we have heard from across the House—to give clarity to farmers and to abolish the family farm tax.

I hope the Government do not make another error by losing the progress made since 2014 in the control of bovine TB. If we take a quick decision without looking at all the science and the evidence, we might take backwards steps that will have significant impacts on our rural communities. At present, we need all the tools to remain in the bovine TB control toolbox: biosecurity measures, better diagnostic testing, cattle vaccination, badger vaccination, roll-out of the DIVA test and targeted control of the wildlife reservoir.

To conclude, I reiterate that His Majesty’s official Opposition believe that targeted, humane and evidence-based badger control should remain a measure—not forever, but so long as the evidence says that it needs to stay in place. It is an available part of the toolbox, alongside others, to control the spread of the devastating disease that is bovine TB. The previous Government set out their ambition to eradicate the disease by 2038, and it is important to highlight that the current Government have not changed that target year. We should follow the science, the evidence and the data, for the sake of our cattle sector, our rural communities and, indeed, rural mental health.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

The future of Thames Water is in sharp focus again, affecting millions of people and potentially the wider UK taxpayer. Bizarrely, the third party—along the Benches to my left—led legal action that could have sunk the company. Reform UK is also happy for the company to go under, exposing taxpayers to a cost of billions and pushing consumer water bills through the roof. This Labour Government, in the passing of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, repeatedly blocked our Conservative amendment that would have enabled limits to be placed on the amount of money that can be borrowed by water companies.

As we reach a precipice with Thames Water, and given the Cunliffe review’s clear call for improved financial responsibility, will the Government rethink their approach and adopt sensible measures to put water companies on a more stable and secure financial footing to protect water, the environment and the British taxpayer?

[Steve Reed]

The reason that Thames is in the state that it is in is the weak, so-called “light-touch” regulation that the Conservatives imposed on the water companies when they should have been getting a grip. The point beyond that that the hon. Gentleman makes is a sensible one, however, and our reforms to water regulation and indeed to the regulator are intended to ensure that such problems cannot happen again. In the case of Thames, we are of course keeping a very close eye on what is going on with that company. At the moment, it remains viable, but we are ready for all eventualities, should they occur.

Draft Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (Amendment, etc.) Regulations 2025

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 General Committees

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Stringer. I thank the Minister for bringing these regulations to the Committee today. It is again encouraging to see that this Government have drawn upon our previous consultations to shape this statutory instrument; between December 2023 and March 2024, the previous Conservative Government held a consultation with the devolved nations on reforming the producer responsibility system for waste electricals.

I am pleased that the Minister talked about the disposable vapes ban as well, which was initiated by the previous Conservative Government. We very much welcome the fact that this Labour Government have taken that baton and taken it forward. The Minister mentioned the important environmental benefits of that legislation; there are also other significant benefits in terms of public health, specifically for our young people, who have really been targeted inappropriately around these disposable vapes. It will protect wildlife and domestic animals as well, as I have spoken about to the Minister and in the Chamber.

Turning back to the legislation we are talking about today, that previous consultation proposed creating a new category of electrical equipment for vapes, and 91% of respondents agreed with that policy change. I am pleased that these regulations will create that new category, and I hope that businesses producing electrical and electronic equipment in the toy and leisure sector—category 7 of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2013—will be happy to see that this will mean that they are no longer picking up the costs for those who produce e-cigarettes, vapes and heated tobacco products. Those products are considerably more costly to collect and recycle than toys and other leisure equipment, primarily due to the materials used in their construction and the need for specialised treatment to handle nicotine and other potentially toxic substances within the equipment. This statutory instrument will ensure that the financial obligation for those costs falls fairly on the producers of those devices.

The consultation also sought views on online marketplaces, and 87% of respondents agreed on that, highlighting that large volumes of electricals are being placed on the market via online marketplaces, which the Minister mentioned, and that there needs to be a level playing field between producers that sell electricals through different channels.

I am therefore pleased to say that we, His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition, are very supportive of this instrument. It is not right that the entirety of the financial obligations falls upon producers who are properly registered under the 2013 regulations. It creates an unfair situation in which those who avoid the financial obligations are benefiting, and those who follow the rules are bearing the costs. This also has serious consequences for competition, and at a time when businesses are facing rising costs due to the Chancellor’s mismanagement of economy, it is another hammer blow to businesses. While we are offering no objections to the instrument, I hope the Minister can provide some assurances on how the relevant authorities, such as the Environment Agency in England, will ensure that online marketplaces are complying with their new obligations.

With regard to the new responsibilities on online marketplaces, the Government have confirmed that they expect there to be small contractual and familiarisation costs. Does the Minister have any concern that some online suppliers may withdraw their products from UK markets, reducing choice and availability for UK customers?

We will be supporting the regulations, and I am grateful that they were brought before the Committee.