Fishing and Seafood Sector Strategy

Noah Law Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner]

As ever, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and always asks insightful questions. I can assure him there was quite a debate about whether to include food in the industrial strategy. Of course, there are wider consequences and costs to including it. I am no longer in a position to comment on the Government’s perspective, but I am sure the Minister has heard the right hon. Gentleman’s point.

To shape the strategy, the report proposes four pillars: sustainable management and access to space and quota; fleet modernisation, infrastructure and technology; workforce and labour; and supply chains and domestic consumption, underpinned by measures relating to governance, science, funding and the sector’s social licence. The strategy is set out across 38 separate recommendations. You will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to go through them, Sir Roger, but I will make some brief observations on the merits of that strategy through the lens of food.

As we are all repeating these days, food security is national security, and on an island that surely must be as true at sea as it is on land. After all, fishing is fundamentally about food production. I will take three aspects of this in turn: food security, health and climate. First, on food security, I do not represent a fishing constituency, but like all constituents, mine eat fish—although probably not as much as they should. What struck me throughout the process, and during my time as Minister and shadow Minister, was how disconnected the fish on our plates has become from the boats that catch it. According to the most recent figures, 461,000 tonnes of fish and shellfish were landed into UK ports in 2025. At the same time, we imported more than 1.1 million tonnes of seafood, while UK consumers purchased more than 411,000 tonnes of seafood in retail outlets.

It is true that we export much of what we catch and import much of what we eat. There is nothing inherently wrong with that; it is part of the reality of a rather remarkable food system. We heard in our inquiry that both are key to the UK’s diverse seafood economy, and in normal times that serves us well. From the pandemic to the war in Ukraine and instability in the middle east, we have recently learned just how fragile supply chains can be. We also know that supply chains will be strained further by climate change and biodiversity loss.

In those moments, a diverse domestic fleet and onshore processing capacity are strategic assets—a source of food that can be redirected to our own tables when supply chains are under pressure. However, in the UK, fishing and seafood all too often remain on the periphery of how we think about food security and resilience. Too often, they are absent from the discussion. We have no headline measure of how self-sufficient we are in seafood, and we continue to fail to connect the role of sustainable fisheries to our resilience planning. It is so frustrating to see an indigenous food-producing industry remain on the edges of those conversations.

That is why the action plan recommends that seafood should be fully represented in food security assessments, so that we understand how domestic fisheries can help the food system absorb shocks now and in the future. Alongside that, it recommends measurable targets for seafood supply, consumption and the sector’s contribution to food security. I am very grateful to Dr Sarah Coulthard from Newcastle University for her work on small-scale fisheries, the inshore fleet and their contribution to our food security.

Secondly, on health—for food is also about health—sustainable seafood has a lot to offer towards a healthier nation. The NHS recommends at least two portions of fish a week, one of them oily. However, the average person in the UK eats around half that. The gap is widest among children and lower-income households—the very people who stand to benefit most from seafood nutrition. A strategy for fishing and seafood should set out practical steps to address that, including a sustained two-a-week campaign run with the NHS, better food environments and public procurement—a lever that the Government control directly. After all, a healthier population is ultimately a lower burden on the health service.

Thirdly, on climate, well-managed, wild-caught seafood offers a relatively low-carbon form of animal protein. It needs no feed, no fertiliser and no land. Emissions from fuel use across the entire UK fishing fleet account for around 0.12% of the UK’s territorial emissions, and about 1.1% of those from agriculture. If fishing is to play its full part in climate action, however, we have to be honest about the current state of play.

Parts of the fleet are ageing; some boats are around 60 years old. Many want to modernise, but few can afford to. Vessel construction and operating costs have risen sharply, and smaller operators struggle to access affordable finance. There are no off-the-shelf net zero solutions for fishing vessels. That is why the action plan calls for a programme of demonstrator vessels and research into alternative fuels to build evidence and de-risk investment, and for a national assessment of harbour and shoreside infrastructure needs, including readiness for decarbonisation.

The industry is working hard to meet its sustainability obligations, but if we expect it to succeed, including on decarbonisation, we must help it to meet the costs of getting there. Investment via the fishing and coastal growth fund is welcome, and the strategy could help to guide where that money goes so that it can effectively support the industry and the wider sector.

As I have already suggested, none of this sits neatly in one Department. Food security sits with DEFRA; health with the Department of Health and Social Care; energy and net zero with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero; procurement right across Government; crew visas with the Home Office; trade with the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade; and fisheries management itself spans three devolved Governments, and so on.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentioned the devolved Governments. Does he recognise the potential role that the single foundation strategic authority of Cornwall can play, together with our local Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation, in deploying that funding in a much more targeted and localised way?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The work of the CFPO is truly inspirational for much of the sector. My hon. Friend’s point about the possibilities of devolving decision making feeds into the wider discussion around devolution at the moment. I think we may need to revisit regional levels of intervention, because that might be the right level at which to do it.

To go back to the Government Departments—I wish the Minister luck with this—each decision made across those spaces may be sensible on its own terms, but when they fail to join up, the sector feels the consequences cumulatively, however unintentional they may be. That is precisely why the sector needs a strategy.

There is more to be said, but I suspect that many hon. Members will raise the issues facing their own constituencies. I hope that the Minister will take from my contribution a sense of the value of fishing and seafood to the nation, and of the need for a strategic view to secure the sector’s national benefit. I was very grateful that he attended the launch of the action plan a few weeks ago and engaged and responded with such grace. I know full well the constraints that he faces, but I will ask him for some assurances.

First, will the Government commit to publishing a long-term strategy for fishing in the wider seafood sector when resources and time allow? Secondly, will that strategy form part of the sustainable ocean plan that the Government have committed to developing next year? Thirdly, how will the Government work with the devolved Administrations to ensure that the strategy is backed across all four nations and delivered on the ground? Fourthly, will the Minister provide a written response to the APPG’s 38 recommendations and meet the APPG to discuss them in depth?

In conclusion, I thank everyone involved in the production of the report, and am grateful for the good will shown by people across the industry and beyond. On a personal note, I thank the brilliant officials I had the good fortune of working with at DEFRA, particularly the highly knowledgeable Anne Freeman. I also thank my friend Terri Portmann from Plymouth, who has helped me throughout these five fascinating years. This industry inspires great passion and commitment, and rightly so. It deserves the strategy that it seeks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for calling this debate and the Minister for his prioritisation of a visit to Newlyn in Cornwall so early in his tenure, where I am sure he gained a strong sense of our priorities. Fishing remains central to communities like mine in mid-Cornwall. As we have heard from colleagues on all sides of the Chamber, it is vital that we continue to put our fishermen and women at the heart of shaping and delivering the future of the sector.

More topically, I welcome the continued freeze on red diesel duties announced in the Budget, but we must recognise that EU vessels continue to benefit from access to the crisis mechanisms of the European maritime, fisheries and aquaculture fund and the middle east crisis temporary state aid framework. That is putting our fleets at a significant competitive disadvantage and all too often rendering it uneconomical to leave port. Will the Minister consider how the Government can address that competitive disadvantage?

Turning to the bigger picture, the fleets in our sector, sector 7, remain under significant pressure, including from foreign vessels, which account for approximately two thirds of landings. Although quota distribution has increased marginally in favour of UK vessels in recent years, not all fisheries are quota-bound and, broadly speaking, catch ratios in the sector continue to reflect historically established entitlements, with the highest concentration of effort per job in the sector remaining among the industrial-scale foreign vessels we have heard quite a bit about today.

[Torcuil Crichton]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that one of the only opportunities of Brexit was the opportunity to look at the UK quota again and redistribute it to communities and inshore fleets such as his?

[Noah Law]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the need for a democratisation of many of the quotas. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about that.

As we all know, not all fishing effort has an equivalent ecological impact. Larger, industrialised and—in my sector, at least—foreign vessels are likely to have a disproportionate impact on stocks, while the smaller vessels of our domestic, largely inshore fleets tend to employ more selective, low-impact fishing methods. Ultimately, the smaller vessels that make up our fleet in Cornwall and across the wider sector act as the bedrock of both employment and environmental stewardship. Those twin priorities should be core Labour priorities. Fishermen tell us about the pressures, which really are mounting in the six to 12 nautical mile zone. Will the Minister consider the efficacy in our sector of potential measures in the six to 12 nautical mile zone, and whether a 221 kW engine-size restriction could meet the employment and environmental challenges? Similar measures have been employed effectively and selectively on a sectoral basis, as in the case of fly seining and beam trawling recently in area 7 and coastal waters, respectively, as well as longer-dated precedent in continental waters, with measures for the North sea plaice box.

Finally, in the light of forthcoming responses to our fisheries management plan consultations, I would welcome the introduction not just of some of the proposed technical measures on engine size, but of an integrated approach to biodiversity targets, a climate-sensitive approach to stock rebuilding—that has been alluded to but not spelled out explicitly—that recognises the reality of mixed fisheries, and recognition of the spatial challenges that we have heard about and the need for integrated marine spatial planning, as so masterfully highlighted in the action plan of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Finally and briefly from the Back Benches, I call Mr Myer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree. The Government must look beyond fishermen and at the wider sector, including the food processing sector. That is a key ask as part of this debate. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that in his wind-up speech.

The challenge on fuel means that countries on the continent—France, Italy, Spain, Germany and Ireland—have spent tens of millions supporting their fishermen, so much so that in some of our waters the only boats that can afford to fish are the European ones. That is frankly absurd and prompts the question: what are the Government doing about it? Does the Minister think it fair that British fishermen are competing in their own British waters with a European fleet propped up by their Governments? Will the Minister bring forward a tailored plan to provide fuel support to fishermen, as the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations has requested?

One aim of Brexit was to put British fishermen first in British waters. The previous Conservative Government took the UK out of the common fisheries policy and negotiated 750,000 tonnes of fishing opportunities for 2024. What was that for? That opportunity was squandered by the Labour Government when they handed EU vessels full access to our waters until 2038—12 years of fishing rights signed away at a cost that the NFFO estimates reaches £6 billion easily.

What did our fishermen get in return? Absolutely nothing. Under the deal the Conservative Government negotiated, access would have been agreed year-by-year, giving us the same leverage that Norway uses to secure a fair deal. That leverage has now gone, thanks to the complete disregard of the Labour Government for the livelihoods of fishermen up and down the country. For this Government, fishermen are just another pawn they can sacrifice for a closer relationship with the EU, whatever the cost.

[Noah Law]

If that is so, why did the hon. Gentleman’s Government not negotiate one-year rolling access rather than a longer period?

[Robbie Moore]

The one-year rolling access was in the pipeline to continue, as it was with the negotiations with Europe. It was this Labour Government that signed away our fishing rights for 12 years.

I must turn to the hon. Member for Cambridge, for whom I have a great deal of respect. When the deal was signed in May last year, he was the Minister responsible for fisheries at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. He did not oppose it; he defended it. In a written answer he said:

“That deal secures a continuation of the current access arrangements.”

That is 12 more years of the status quo for a fleet that was promised so much more. That was the deal that he stood behind. I welcome his support today for the fishing strategy, but fishermen in every harbour town will be entitled to ask why he did not fight for them when he was in a position to act.

We have a new Prime Minister who talks a great deal about supporting our food sector and our fishermen. We are about to enter an EU summit on 20 November and the widely circulated joint draft statement says that the Prime Minister welcomes

“decisions on full reciprocal access to waters to fish, until 30 June 2038…and the extension of energy co-operation on a continuing basis.”

There we have it. Our fishermen have been sold down the line yet again by this Labour Government. I will give the Minister the opportunity to intervene if he is able to say why this is such a good deal for our fishermen. He does not wish to intervene. Will he confirm that nothing in the SPS agreement will affect UK fisheries management? Will he instruct negotiators not to concede technical measures or any other backdoor measures to the EU in the forthcoming negotiations?

There is also the challenge of spatial squeeze at sea, which was picked up by many Members. Fishermen are being squeezed out of their own waters. Offshore wind takes their grounds, with compulsory marine protected areas taking yet more in a double displacement. The NFFO warns that the third round of marine conservation zones could, in effect, ban fishing in an area the size of Wales, limiting the scope of fishing in this country and once again damaging the livelihoods of our fishermen. On that point, will the Government review the compensatory marine protected areas for offshore wind? What are the Government doing to make the case for fishing to the Crown Estate?

That brings me to the fishing and coastal growth fund. The industry welcomed the fund, but let me be clear about its scale: £360 million over 12 years is around £30 million a year. However, the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations estimates that the EU access deal will cost the sector £6 billion. What side of the sector are this Government on? Energy upgrades funded through the fund will take months to deliver, and any fuel savings will be eclipsed by today’s diesel prices. When the EFRA Committee asked the Government to frontload the fund, Ministers said no. Without help, investment and skills are already leaving right now. There may therefore not be much of the sector left for the fund to support. With landings down 10% by weight in a single year, does the Minister seriously believe that £360 million spread over 12 years is enough? I put the question again: will he look to frontload the fund to support our sector now?

To conclude, the fishing industry’s asks are clear and reasonable: tailored fuel support and an SPS deal that protects our hard-won controls in our waters, rather than negotiating them away, as this Government have with the 12 years they signed away and are due to put in concrete, so to speak, at the EU summit on 20 November. Negotiations that concede nothing through the back door are an absolute request of the fishing sector, as are an end to double displacement and the first ever UK fishing strategy. Our fishermen feel forgotten. They deserve a Government who are truly on their side. Over the past two years, this Labour Government have shown a blatant disregard for fishermen’s way of life and for the importance of their work to UK food security. This debate is a chance for the Minister to show that he gets it and that he cares. I look forward to his response to the specific questions that have been asked.

Water Sector: Public Ownership

Noah Law Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

I welcome the fact that, under the Prime Minister’s leadership, the conversation on public control of the water industry has fundamentally shifted. We must no longer bury our heads in the sand over the question of public control of the water sector, but we owe our constituents honest answers, not easy answers.

I am sure that there are few in this House who feel that they could credibly advocate that there is truly a cost-free form of nationalism out there—or for expropriation, as it more honestly should be called. Despite my background, I promise that I am very much not the “It’s all about the bond markets” guy in this case. I think we all know, however, that there is no free lunch at scale when it comes to the overall cost of funding the industry. At the same time, this industry should never have been privatised in the first place, and immense sums have been extracted from it over the years. Although some of the more recent investment expectations under this Government have begun to temper that, the extraction is still happening in egregious cases such as that of Thames Water.

Let me briefly take Members through the four options for taking back control of the industry. Option one is a pragmatic approach to cost-free nationalisation, which says that even more stringent regulation would bankrupt the companies so that we could acquire them for nothing. The problem is that we can get as good of a deal with these companies as we like, but the British public would still have to foot the £100 billion-plus investment in upgrades over the next five years or so.

Option two is that we pay the full whack. I think we all know that RCV is not a fair market valuation, but when the debt, which needs to be paid down or taken on, is factored in, the figure is up to the better part of £100 billion. Even then, there is the investment on top of that.

Option three is to wait for the water companies to go bankrupt and then acquire them for next to nothing. Ofwat sees 10 of those companies with high financial risk, but the Government would still have to foot the infrastructure bill on a company-by-company basis—that would be cheaper, but slower.

Option four is to start with what the British public actually want to see from its water system and have a democratic conversation about what they are willing to invest to solve the problem. We then work out the impact that that has on the value of the industry. The reality is that we have already had that conversation—we know what the British public want because they have been shouting it from the rooftops, often in wetsuits with surfboards in hand.

I commend the work of the Good Growth Foundation, which has gotten to grips with some of the challenges and opportunities presented by the special administration scheme to take back control of the water industry for the public good, and enable us to take those profits and reinvest them into fixing our water system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. The current model for our water service is not working for customers and has not been working for quite some time. My constituents have watched their bills rise again and again while Thames Water falls further into debt and water bosses are rewarded with huge bonuses, despite failing to invest in critical infrastructure and allowing more sewage pollution into our rivers, lakes and streams.

These failures in investment, infrastructure and environmental performance have undermined public confidence, and customers have been unable to take their business elsewhere, because the water companies operate through regional monopolies. I commend the Government for trying to tackle some of those issues, but tougher regulation is not enough to deal with a model that is fundamentally broken. Thames Water is in approximately £19 billion of debt, but the rescue deal on the table is a market-led recapitalisation by its creditors that will keep the failing private ownership model intact in exchange for environmental leniency.

Water is an essential service and a natural monopoly, so it is reasonable to ask whether the interests of taxpayers are best served when the ownership of our water is determined by private investors. Bringing Thames Water into public ownership, either permanently or initially through a special administration regime, would allow the Government to write down debt on fairer terms than any creditor-led deal and to direct further revenue toward infrastructure and customers, rather than debt servicing and returns to shareholders.

We must restore public confidence and end the era of profiting from pollution and prioritising shareholder returns over taxpayers. Our water services are too essential to be treated simply as another commercial asset. The water privatisation of the 1980s is a failed ideological experiment that has seen profits plundered into the pockets of hedge funds and offshore investors, while the sector has been starved of investment. Not a single reservoir has been built since 1992, and there has been under-investment in our antiquated pipes and overflowing sewerage system.

[Noah Law]

Does my hon. Friend support our Labour Government’s initiative to build more reservoirs for the first time in decades?

[Bambos Charalambous]

I support my hon. Friend 100%. We urgently need the infrastructure, because we have seen the impact of drought and the need for hosepipe bans as a result of not having the infrastructure in place.

As I was saying, not a single reservoir has been built since 1992, and the underinvestment in our antiquated pipes and overflowing sewerage system is plain to see. This is not good enough. That is why public ownership is the only way forward, and why I urge the Government to put Thames Water back into public ownership as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Noah Law Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Stephen Morgan)]

As I mentioned, I am due to meet the National Pig Association in due course. I take those issues seriously and I want to ensure that there is certainty and clarity in the sector. We recently published our farming road map, which brings that certainty and consistency, but I am happy to follow up on the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

T5. Under our current system, food imported from abroad, often from countries with lower standards, can be packaged in the UK but labelled as British. To stop “flagwashing”, and to back our British farmers, will the Minister back the Labour rural research group’s calls to introduce a mandatory labelling system, based on the blueprint set out by Australia’s country-of-origin labelling standard?

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend for his work on those important matters. This is about fairness for consumers and farmers. We want people to know where their food comes from, trust what they are buying, and back British farmers who meet our high standards. I would happily meet my hon. Friend to discuss his helpful ideas.

Farming Road Map and Profitability Review

Noah Law Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

We consulted on that issue—obviously, this falls under the MHCLG—in December. The Ministry is considering the responses, but I am working with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that we make it easier for farmers to establish on-farm reservoirs in order to give them more resilience.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

I really welcome the ambition of the road map, particularly the focus on buying British and the nod to honest food labelling. We must now make that ambition real and focus steadfastly on the drivers of farm profitability, so that farmers are making more money from their core business of farming by the end of this Parliament than they were when it started. In that spirit, the Labour rural research group continues our calls for honest origin labelling for food. I hope the Secretary of State will back those calls and commit, as did her predecessor, to meeting the LRRG to discuss this issue further.

[Emma Reynolds]

I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend and the Labour rural research group, and I thank him for what he said about the road map.

I have an update for the House. The hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) is no longer in his place, but somebody has done some work for me related to question: “profitability” is mentioned in the road map 17 times, the word “profitable” is mentioned 27 times and “profit” is mentioned 52 times.

Oral Answers to Questions

Noah Law Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Katie Lam—not here.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

T3. Even ahead of the global instability this spring, the Labour rural research group was calling for a spring push on farm profitability. Since then, our Government have announced a review of the regulation that farmers face and brought the Groceries Code Adjudicator back in-house at DEFRA to help level the playing field for British farmers. Can the Minister tell me what is next for our mission to get British farmers’ operating profitability back to where it should be?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

The farming and food partnership board is looking at profitability, and the sector growth plans for horticulture and poultry have already been announced. We have reduced red diesel duty, we will open the reformed SFI and will shortly publish our 25-year farming road map, our response to the Batters farming profitability review.

Oral Answers to Questions

Noah Law Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

Let me gently point out to the right hon. Lady that on Monday the Prime Minister announced a £53 million package to help rural communities that are reliant on heating oil. On waste crime, I will take no lectures from the right hon. Lady, because the Conservatives had 14 years in government to address waste crime. In 2018 they had a review on what to do about waste crime, and they did precisely nothing.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

T5. When we came to power, our then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs committed to protect farmers from being undercut in all new trade deals. I am pleased to say that we have come good on that commitment. Ahead of the Labour rural research group’s push for farming profitability, will the Secretary of State agree to level the playing field in trade deals, and will she reaffirm that commitment to farmers?

[Emma Reynolds]

We have promoted and protected farmers in trade deals, unlike the previous Government, who sold them down the river with the US and Australian trade deals.

Oral Answers to Questions

Noah Law Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy]

The hon. Lady raises a really important point. Agricultural pollution is incredibly serious, and this Government recognise that. We have updated the DEFRA statutory guidance for the farming rules for water, and I recently hosted a roundtable with farmers, environmental organisations and the water industry to bring the voices of stakeholders to the fore. We have committed to including a new regional element in the new regulator to ensure greater involvement in water planning. By moving to a catchment-based model for water systems planning, we can tackle all sources of pollution entering the waterways, including agricultural pollution.

I have a very keen interest in the River Wye; I went to see it last year, and it is absolutely beautiful. The hon. Lady will be well aware of the research project with £1 million of funding that we announced to look into all sources of pollution and what we can do to clean up this beautiful place in our country.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

I welcome the fact that the rolling reporting of dry-day spills has become mandatory under our Government, but it has unfortunately laid bare the track record of South West Water, which is among the worst offenders on dry-day spills. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that companies such as South West Water feel the full force of the law with regard to dry-day spills?

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to be angry about the state in which our rivers, lakes and seas have been left, and I recognise the trouble that a failing water company causes for his constituency. That is why we have committed to resetting, reforming and revolutionising the water sector and why we are establishing a new, single and powerful regulator that can fully hold all companies to account and ensure that they are delivering for the British people and cleaning up our waterways for good.

Glass Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility

Noah Law Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Champion]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

The glass sector has always supported the principle behind EPR. It lobbied, on sound environmental and safety grounds, against inclusion in the deposit return scheme, knowing and accepting that that would mean the inclusion of all glass products in EPR. Yet the terms of EPR have seemingly been deliberately stacked against the sector.

It is not only glass manufacturers who will be hit hard by this change. Indeed, since being granted this debate I have been inundated with messages from organisations worried about the impact of EPR.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to ensure that the implementation of EPR avoids unintended consequences for businesses such as pubs, which are already facing huge headwinds? In many cases, pubs already manage their packaging waste through commercial contracts, so they would face double the levy.

[Sarah Champion]

My hon. Friend makes a sound point, which I will reinforce.

Let me go through some—I emphasise “some”—of the organisations that have been in touch with me about this issue. They include Vinarchy, one of the world’s largest wine companies; the Society of Independent Brewers and Associates; the Campaign for Real Ale, CAMRA; the British Beer and Pub Association; the Wine and Spirit Trade Association; UKHospitality; the Foodservice Packaging Association; the Metal Packaging Manufacturers Association; the Scotch Whisky Association; the Irish Whiskey Association; the English Whisky Guild; the Brewing, Food and Beverage Industry Suppliers’ Association; the National Association of Cider Makers; and WineGB. All these organisations have spoken out against EPR and their criticisms of the approach being taken by the Government have been surprisingly—indeed, strikingly—similar. Minister, they cannot all be wrong.

Other assessments of EPR plans have been similarly damning. The Office for Budget Responsibility has concluded that EPR is a tax. It will not improve recycling rates and it will damage businesses. The Bank of England and the British Retail Consortium have recently stated that the impact of this policy on businesses will be similar to that of the increased national insurance costs. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) said, all this is coming at a time of rising economic uncertainty, which is the result of the Trump tariffs. Pubs face an estimated £8 million hike in their costs, which will equate to an extra £2,000 per year for a large pub.

Water Bill

Noah Law Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 28th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Clive Lewis]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I agree with him wholeheartedly and I am just about to come to that point in relation to what the Water (Special Measures) Act does and does not do. It addresses some of those points, but as we have already discussed, privatisation is not just a problem, but the problem, and it is a big part of why so much has gone wrong.

Unfortunately, the Water (Special Measures) Act does not live up to what was promised or what is needed, and it certainly does not live up to its name. However, it is a start, and I praise my colleagues on the Front Bench, including the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), who has done so much work in this area. Unfortunately, the Act is not a solution.

Remarkably, my Government’s Water (Special Measures) Act does not even define what clean water means. There are no standards or targets—just vague intentions handed over once again to a regulatory system that has already failed us and to the companies that caused the mess in the first place. It says nothing about better governance, and absolutely nothing about the big, fat, humongous elephant in the room: who owns our water? If we do not deal with ownership, we cannot deal with accountability. If we cannot deal with accountability, we can forget clean water. No—we must go further on clean water standards, corporate accountability and what happens when companies fail.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

Does my hon. and gallant Friend accept that there is increased accountability in the Water (Special Measures) Act through the fact that many companies in the industry are now rewriting their articles of association to ensure that they are accountable not just to shareholders, but to the customers and users of water?

[Clive Lewis]

After 35 years of abject failure, it is too little, too late. My Bill would put the final nail in the coffin of this sorry chapter of our country’s water and water system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Lewis]

I will just make some progress, and then I will give way. I am on a roll. Let me tell the House where the money has not come from for these past 35 years. It has not come from private shareholders or long-term thinking, and it certainly has not come from some mythical well of benevolent capitalism. The private companies have put in less than nothing; in fact, they have racked up more than £60 billion in debt. Thames Water has paid more than £7.2 billion in dividends since privatisation, and is now £15.2 billion in debt and counting—work that out. Now, it is trying to plug the hole with a £3 billion emergency loan that will cost 10% in annual interest. That is more than half a billion pounds a year, just for interest payments, courtesy of our bills. That money will not build a reservoir, fix a pipe or clean a river, but it will keep a rotten system afloat for a little longer.

[Noah Law]

My hon. and gallant Friend makes an impassioned case for public ownership—something that, in the right context, I am sure Members on all sides of the House can celebrate. On the point about the cost of financing to the public, though, does he agree that while there are some serious indiscretions in parts of the industry, such as in Thames Water’s case, this conversation about the appropriate financing model would be better entertained at a time when the cost of capital in the private water industry was not lower than the cost of public sector borrowing, on which, of course, we are in a very difficult situation?

[Clive Lewis]

The cheapest borrowing in the country, without a doubt, is public sector borrowing. The private water industry, which has had 35 years to sort this mess out, is not going to find investment. It is up to its eyeballs in debt. It is relying on a 50% increase in our bills by 2030, if we include inflation, and that is in the middle of a cost of living crisis. How can we justify that? The answer is that we cannot.

Oral Answers to Questions

Noah Law Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

The UK strongly supports global efforts to protect forests, and we are advocating for the international commitment to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030, while at the same time supporting forest dwellers and economic development. As I say, nothing has yet been ruled in or out, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this further.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

9. What steps he is taking to encourage public bodies to prioritise the purchase of British produce.

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

The new national procurement policy statement sets out requirements for Government contracts, and favours high-quality products that we believe British producers are very well placed to supply. This will support our ambition to ensure that half of the food supplied for public sector catering comes from local producers, or those certified to higher environmental standards.

[Noah Law]

I welcome the Minister’s commitment to ensuring that 50% of public procurement is of British produce. Given the significant £5 billion of bargaining power that this represents, what steps is he taking to ensure that this leads to fairer prices for farmers and supports the fundamental operating profitability of the sector?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful for the question from my hon. Friend. We are absolutely determined to make the best of this opportunity, not least because the previous Government did not know how much we were actually buying. The Secretary of State has announced that we will monitor the food bought in the public sector, and that will inform our policy of making sure that British farmers make the most of the opportunity for public procurement.