Environment Agency: East of England

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the performance of the Environment Agency in the East of England.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I have secured this debate to highlight concerns about the operational performance of the Environment Agency in the east of England. This reflects both my time as the Secretary of State overseeing the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the run-up to the general election and numerous interactions with it in my capacity as a constituency MP.

As we are meeting the week before a comprehensive spending review, it is perhaps prudent to start with the usual excuse given by organisations for poor operational performance: a lack of people or funding. According to the Environment Agency’s own annual outcomes, its full-time equivalent staff increased in the last Parliament by 21% from 10,791 in 2019-2020, at the start of the Parliament, to more than 13,000 in 2023-24. Over the same period, its expenditure has gone up from £1.4 billion to £2.2 billion, so it has significantly more people and funding, while at the same time showing a remarkable lack of transparency or accountability to Ministers or Members of Parliament, and a remarkable lack of willingness to take enforcement action against those causing the worst levels of environmental damage.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman. It is an absolute scandal: the Environment Agency seems happy to pursue farmers and landowners with a zest and enthusiasm, yet big businesses and other people seem to be left to the side. Is it not time that the Environment Agency supported farmers and helped them when they need it, rather than chasing them and not others?

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point, and he is correct. It seems that the Environment Agency is very happy to go after what it may perceive to be easier and more law-abiding targets, but as the most serious environmental harm is caused by serious criminal gangs, there is often a reluctance to take on those organisations in the way that it does an individual farmer. That is why this also points to a need for a much more fundamental reform of the Department’s relationship with its arm’s length bodies, as well as its accountability to Ministers, regardless of which Government is in office.

This debate is focused specifically on the east of England, and I want to give three examples of where that operational performance really illustrates concerns across the boards with environmental damage being caused. Before doing so, given that I have been the Secretary of State, I thought it relevant to touch on a national example to show that this is not simply a constituency or local issue. With that in mind, let me inform the House about Hoad’s wood, which is a site of special scientific interest and an area of outstanding natural beauty that has been covered—as you probably know, Sir Roger—in more than 35,000 tonnes of illegal waste.

We might have thought that a SSSI would be a priority case for the Environment Agency, and one where it would be most certain to take action. However, so concerned was I as a Minister that I had to take the very unusual step of issuing a ministerial direction. No ministerial direction had been issued in the Department in the preceding seven years before I arrived as Secretary of State, so this was an unusual but necessary step to compel the EA to take action on a SSSI. Again, I think that speaks to some of the issues. Even so, the situation has dragged on, with contractors not appointed until November last year, work not beginning until March and completion not expected until at least 2026. That points to some of the issues with the most valuable sites, never mind more routine sites.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I will give another example from Kent. In Tunbridge Wells in my constituency, the River Grom often has very high levels of ammonia due to sewage being dumped in the river. When that is reported to the Environment Agency, it claims a lack of funds, does not send its own investigators and often passes the matter to Southern Water, which is perhaps to blame for the problem in the first place. Does that not contribute to a lack of democratic oversight of our environment?

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Member absolutely catches the point raised earlier about the lack of accountability and transparency, and the highlights fact that, although the EA has had more money and resource, it is not targeting priority cases or long-standing issues, while often telling Members of Parliament that they are priorities. I will come on to that, because there is a wider issue of which the Minister needs to be aware: the slowness to act and lack of accountability.

Turning to the east of England, and my own constituency in particular, let me give three examples that cover a range of scenarios. The first is the dumping of more than 122,000 tonnes of waste at Saxon Pit in Whittlesey between October 2017 and February 2018. The EA’s initial response was to say that it was totally unaware of 122,000 tonnes of waste being dumped—but, regardless of whether the EA had been asleep at the wheel, we would expect it to then act. In its initial response, the EA said that the operator must dispose of all the non-conforming waste by 10 October 2018; yet seven years on the waste remains in situ. The EA also promised prosecutions, because this was such a serious case. I will quote just one of many letters that I exchanged with the EA over this period. In 2021, the then-chief executive Sir James Bevan promised that

“Saxon Pit is being treated as a priority”.

The EA’s investigation took a further 14 months to complete, but in June 2022 it said that a

“final set of interviews…will take place shortly”.

In October 2022, the chief executive asked me to,

“be assured that my teams are prioritising this work over other competing criminal inquiries”.

Three years ago, the EA said it was prioritising this serious case, with more 122,000 tonnes of waste, over other cases. It was a priority case. Yet three years on, and seven years on from the incident, we still have no prosecutions. To go back to what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said a moment ago, what cases is the EA prosecuting with its additional resource, if it is not prosecuting at Saxon Pit?

I thought that the Minister might reflect, “Perhaps that was simply an issue of the past Government. Perhaps things have changed—the Environment Agency has perhaps changed its approach.” I therefore thought it would be helpful to give a second example, from the last year: a very serious pollution incident at King’s dyke, in Whittlesey, the same town as Saxon Pit. I have seen internal papers from the Environment Agency that show that it described the problem, and reported it to the Department, as a category 1 pollution incident. For those not familiar with the term, a category 1 pollution incident is the most severe level, involving a

“serious, persistent…or extensive impact…on the environment, people…or property”.

The BBC reported that an estimated 900 fish were killed in close vicinity to an Anglian Water overflow pipe, and that the pipe had discharged for 23 hours due to a suspected pump failure. When I spoke to Anglian Water and the Environment Agency, no other credible reason was given for the serious incident. I was then told that water samples had been taken and would be quick to establish whether the overflow pipe was the cause of the category 1 incident. I was told on 10 October 2024 that the lab tests were under way, that it would take a week for them to determine the cause, and that an internal decision would be taken on enforcement in November.

November then became December. December became January. We kept chasing, and we were told, “No, it’s no longer January; it’s May.” We chased again in May, and were told September. This is an issue that Ministers say—and I do not doubt for a minute their sincerity—is an absolute priority for the Government. We have the most serious level of pollution incident, a category 1, which happened in September, yet the Environment Agency says it will not tell the public of Whittlesey the cause of it for at least a year—even though I suspect that, internally and within the Department, it is already known whether Anglian Water was the cause and whether, therefore, a criminal investigation should follow. I do not believe that is a sufficient level of transparency or accountability.

Let me give a third example. As a former Minister, I thought I would try to pitch these examples in a way that is constructive across the House. One debate that the Minister may recall was led by one of her parliamentary colleagues, the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker). In it, he raised cross-party concerns—indeed, there were a number of the Minister’s colleagues present, though it was one of her colleagues on the Front Bench—around the environmental damage of incinerators. That is something that many charities usually more closely aligned with the left of politics, such as Friends of the Earth, have raised concerns about, but it is also an issue that many on the Government Benches have highlighted, and one that I have consistently raised myself.

We now know that DEFRA’s own analysis suggests that there is enough national capacity for incineration. As more waste is recycled, the requirements for incineration come down. A BBC report highlighted the serious damage caused by these incinerators and by waste being burned because of anaerobic digesters. Most of that is now plastic, and it is the dirtiest way to generate power. No one would have thought a Government committed to the environment would want to see more incinerators being built. Incineration is on a par with coal as the dirtiest form of energy generation, yet we still do not have clarity from the Government on whether environmental permits will remain in force for incinerators that have not yet been built.

One of those is in Wisbech. To put this incinerator in context, it is so big that one half its size in the neighbouring constituency was turned down—so they doubled it in size to make it a national scheme and take it outside local planning. It is sited 700 metres from the largest school in the district, accessed solely by single carriageway roads, with a chimney bigger than Ely cathedral in the flat landscape of the fens. The Environment Agency, in issuing a permit, says it does not consider any of the environmental harm of transporting waste from six different counties to this small market town, because the permit only applies to the curtilage of the site itself. I simply ask, given the cross-party support on this issue, whether that decision by the Environment Agency is fit for purpose.

I will add one further point. Is it not very odd that the decision to grant an environmental permit was made during the general election purdah period, a time when organisations are not supposed to take controversial decisions? I hope the Minister will follow up on that, because I know that many of her own Government colleagues are concerned. Where incinerators have not yet been built, we should not be embedding the environmental damage that so many charities and environmental groups, and so many of our own colleagues have expressed concern about.

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

The right hon. Member represents North East Cambridgeshire; as the Member for South West Norfolk, I share a border and very similar geography with him, and I recognise many of the concerns he raises about pollution. Does he share my concerns about the EA’s performance on the time taken to issue permits, licences and other permissions? In our part of the world, that is a real barrier to growth and prosperity for businesses, because the performance is so poor—it takes months, if not years, for businesses to get approvals from the EA.

[Steve Barclay]

I do share them. Just for the Minister’s benefit, the hon. Gentleman’s constituency will be materially affected by the Wisbech incinerator in terms of transport; when the developers doubled its size in order to take it out of the local planning process, they created a different problem of how to get sufficient waste to run it. Therefore, it has to take in waste from further and further afield. As Wisbech is a market town, accessed by single carriageway roads—the A47 is single carriageway into Wisbech—bringing waste through my neighbour’s constituency will cause huge traffic there, as it will in many other constituencies across the eastern region.

A BBC report highlights the severe environmental damage that would be caused by the proposed incinerator, but the hon. Gentleman also highlights a wider point about lack of transparency. As in the King’s dyke fishing example, as a constituency MP one chases on behalf of constituents to get them some answers, yet organisations feel they are unaccountable.

That brings me to my final point. It will not surprise the Minister that, as a member of the last Government, I quite frequently raised my constituency concerns—before I was in the Department—with relevant Secretaries of State, and I know that they raised those with the EA; yet, as we see with Saxon Pit, it still failed to take prosecution action over seven years while saying to people locally, “It is a priority case.” As Secretary of State myself, I found the organisation so unresponsive that I had to take the unusual step of issuing a ministerial direction. In fact, I issued two in my six months in the Department, where none had been issued in the seven years before. I fear that Ministers now need to look at the accountability to democratic control of not just the Environment Agency, but Natural England—not least given the three interventions we have heard from colleagues across the House.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I have an issue in my constituency down White Stubbs Lane, where we have raw sewage going over the road. The Environment Agency is unaccountable, hardly wanting to meet with MPs or engage. It told me during the purdah period, “We can’t meet with you, because there is a local election going on,” which is absolute nonsense. It should engage with MPs. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is completely unaccountable and needs fundamental reform and change?

[Steve Barclay]

It does need fundamental reform. I became Secretary of State very close to the general election, but one of my first acts was to issue an instruction to take more rigorous enforcement action more generally on water pollution. I know that current Ministers want to see a more robust set of actions.

I come to my final point. Not least given the Government’s majority and where we are in the parliamentary cycle, there is an opportunity to look at the Department’s relationship with its arm’s length bodies. The Department of Health and Social Care is going through that exact process with NHS England. I encourage the ministerial team to reflect on that, not least for when in some years’ time they are explaining how, if there is lack of action, that sits with some of their priorities. Irrespective of that, as we heard in interventions from across the House, the EA’s lack of transparency and accountability on its operational performance needs to be addressed. I encourage the Minister to focus some time in her busy schedule on doing that.

Waste Incinerators

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I welcome the debate called by the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker); it highlights the cross-party consensus in opposing further incinerators.

In terms of the Wisbech incinerator, it is remarkable that an application to build an incinerator half the size was rejected in the local authority next door, so the response of developers was to double the size in order to make it a nationally significant infrastructure project, to get out of the local planning rules; to put it next to the biggest school in the district—only 700 metres away; to take waste from six different counties, all on small roads in a rural market town; and to have a chimney bigger than Ely cathedral in the flat landscape of the Fens. One can understand why so many people share my concern with the proposal.

I do not want to repeat the very good points that colleagues have made. I want to highlight two new points that the debate has not highlighted so far, which I hope will help Opposition and Government Members and support my own case in empowering the Minister. First, I will cite the Government’s own figures. On 30 December —quite recently—the Government’s own analysis showed that as of 2024 there was already 20.6 megatonnes of residual waste infrastructure capacity in England, of which 14.3 megatonnes was incineration. To put that in plain language, we already have enough incinerator capacity today to deal with the amount of waste that was projected in 2023 to arise by 2035—19.4 megatonnes of residual municipal waste. In other words, our existing capacity, at over 20 megatonnes, is more than we will need in just nine years’ time.

My first question to the Minister is whether DEFRA will commit to publishing analysis assessing the environmental damage of building incinerators, such as the huge incinerator at Wisbech, against the fact that they will be surplus to requirements in as little as nine years’ time. In other words, it will three years to build the incinerator, and after six years of operation it will be additional capacity to what we will need. We therefore need to assess how those two things compare.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Member agree that a sense of where incinerators are located around the country would be helpful, so that we could see the demand for incineration versus the capacity? That might reveal oversupply in certain parts of the country.

[Steve Barclay]

That is a fair point, which is addressed in DEFRA’s December paper. But as my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) highlighted, there are two at Huntingdon, another at Peterborough and two at Boston. There is already a concentration, so I do not accept the point about the east of England in that paper. My point is that we need to see analysis from DEFRA around the bridging issue for the next few years as the Government meet their legal target to reduce the amount of waste by 50% between 2019 and 2042. The amount of residual waste is coming down and we already have sufficient capacity, but there is a bridging issue. There will be short-term options around landfill refuse-derived fuel exports. We need to look at the respective merits of building huge incinerators and the damage that they will do compared with the short-term bridging options.

The second point is that the waste mix has changed. That was a feature of the BBC report that the hon. Member for Derby South highlighted. Burning food waste produces less CO₂ than putting it in landfill, but burning plastics produces 175 times more carbon dioxide than burying it. The reason that that matters—to my first point about bridging—is that the mix going into incineration has fundamentally changed from when the planning rules were initially put in place. What we have seen, and what the BBC highlighted, is an increase in food waste being dealt with through anaerobic digestion. As the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) pointed out, the predominant waste now going to incineration is plastics. It is the burning of plastics that drives the environmental damage, and that is why the hon. Member for Derby South correctly pointed out that it is the dirtiest way that the UK generates power.

My second question is whether the Minister will commit to publishing a composition analysis study of the residual waste treated at energy recovery facilities, as I asked for in a written question on 16 October. DEFRA has confirmed that it is undertaking a composition analysis study, but it was not published with the December analysis. Will the Minister commit to publishing that, so that we can see where the waste is going? Again, that fundamentally changes the environmental case around incineration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

I have set out the actions that we are taking to drive up recycling rates, one of which is to put paid to the proposal we inherited for up to seven bins through the simpler recycling reforms. We have been really clear that we will have black bin waste and mandatory food collections in every local authority, because that does not happen. It obviously happens in Islington, but it does not happen with uniformity across the country. Mandatory food waste recycling came in for businesses on 1 April this year, and it will come in for local authorities on 1 April 2026. That standardisation of recycling and collections should help us all to do better and play our part.

I take on board the right hon. Gentleman’s point about collecting from flats. There are really serious problems. One issue is that recyclable waste is often put into black bins, so they get full very quickly, when actually a lot of stuff could be taken out. The deposit return scheme, the simpler recycling reforms and the extended producer responsibility scheme are really big changes developed under the previous Government and carried on by us at speed, because we have no time to waste. We have to move away from our linear, unsustainable “take, make, throw” model, where we just extract things, make things and throw them away. We want to end the throwaway society, and for things that are made in Britain to be built to last, as they were in olden times.

[Steve Barclay]

Just to follow the logic of the Minister’s point, if more recycling is being promoted by the Government, which is what she has set out, self-evidently both the composition of waste and the existing capacity for incineration will be sufficient. In their December paper, the Government said:

“While there are a number of waste incineration facilities that are consented, but not yet under construction, it is highly unlikely that these will be brought forward.”

If that is the Government’s expectation, and if the Minister is increasing recycling and the capacity is sufficient, why not give clarity to the public and her own Back Benchers by saying, “No more incinerators”?

[Mary Creagh]

The right hon. Gentleman asked about a couple of things in his speech, so I will respond to those first. He asked about composition analysis—we are getting into deep technical detail—and it is about what is actually being incinerated. What is being burned? The right hon. Member for Islington North asked why we do not just put plastic in the ground, as it would just sit there, inert. What is going into incineration?

My understanding is that the emissions trading scheme was consulted on under the previous Government—that bringing local authority energy-from-waste facilities into the ETS from 2028 was consulted on in 2024, so it was an in-flight proposal—but I am very happy to be corrected if I am wrong. The residual municipal waste composition study, covering the period from May 2024 to May 2025, will be published later this year, and I know we cannot wait. It will be interesting, because it is essentially the baseline. It is where we will see if the changes are going to start feeding through.

We said in our manifesto that we would reduce waste by transitioning to a circular economy, which is one of the Secretary of State’s five priorities for DEFRA. I am really proud to be the Minister responsible for that.

The right hon. Member for Islington North asked why we cannot just landfill waste plastics, but there are wider environmental impacts from landfilling plastics than simply carbon emissions, including the issue of microplastics. We do not yet fully understand how plastics degrade in landfill in the long term. Emerging research is exploring the potential of plastic-degrading bacteria in landfills, which could break down plastics and in turn impact greenhouse gas emissions. However, I gently say that we cannot solve today’s problems by storing them up for future generations.

The UK emissions trading scheme is minded to expand the scope of the emissions trading scheme to include energy-from-waste facilities. A consultation on this was published in 2024, which included a call for evidence on incentivising heat networks. With the energy-from-waste plants, there is electricity generation, but there is also a massive excess of heat. Most of that heat just dissipates, but it would be much more efficient to use it, as Coventry city council has with its mile-long pipe under London Road, which heats the local swimming pool or Coventry University’s buildings. I understand that the authority will respond in due course.

At the end of last year, we set out that we will require proposals for new facilities to demonstrate that they will facilitate the diversion of residual waste away from landfill or enable the replacement of older and less efficient facilities. This position reflects the evidence and analysis we have published. It also reflects the waste hierarchy and is congruent with the transition to a circular economy.

Even after the successful delivery of our recycling reforms, there will be sufficient residual waste capacity to treat forecast municipal residual waste arising at national level. On that point, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South is correct. However, there are five areas in England where more than half the residual waste collected by local authorities was sent to landfill in 2023-24. Landfill was also still relied on for an estimated 5.4 million tonnes of non-municipal, non-major mineral waste in 2022, which is the most recent year for which data is available.

We know about the waste that goes into our bins, but there is a lot of other stuff coming out of construction sites, and so on. My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) and I had a chat about this issue in the Lobby, but the analysis the Government published at the end of last year sets out the regional disparities and the regional capacities. It is a good read.

Rural Communities: Government Support

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing the debate. The number of speakers shows how much interest there is, and many points have been covered—too many for me to cover in a short time, although I will do my best.

Both Front-Bench spokespeople—the hon. Members for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) and for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore)—raised the issue of the SFI, which I addressed in a statement earlier today. I thought the shadow Minister started so well when he talked about the challenge that faces any Government, given the cross-departmental nature of these issues. We are honoured to have a former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), with us, and he will know full well how difficult it is to drive these rural issues from DEFRA. I made a particular pitch to be the rural Minister in Labour’s team in the Commons—which is different from before—and I am absolutely determined that these rural issues get a fair hearing.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I put on record my apologies, Dr Murrison—I was giving evidence to the covid public inquiry, which I hope colleagues will realise was the reason for my late arrival. I have a quick question for the Minister: could he clarify when he was first told of the Government’s decision to close SFI for new applications?

[Daniel Zeichner]

We made the decision last night, based on many months of following the budgets, but as I explained earlier, the logic of the change to the system is that if there is a fixed amount of budget, I am afraid there comes a point when the system is full.

Members have raised many other issues, but because we have a three-hour Backbench Business debate on farming in the Chamber tomorrow, I will move on and thank the hon. Member for South Devon for bringing this debate forward. I had an opportunity to visit her lovely constituency very early in my tenure as Minister. I thought she gave a very good account, as did many other Members, of the broad range of challenges faced in rural areas.

I am committed to the rural brief. I have done a number of visits in my first few months that have shown me the importance of applying the Government’s missions in rural areas—particularly our aims to grow the economy, develop clean energy and tackle crime. I went to Northumberland to see the excellent work of the national rural crime unit. I spoke to a number of farmers who have sadly had expensive equipment stolen, and I spoke to volunteer crimewatch groups. I have also been to Warwickshire recently to see the positive effect that can be achieved through community shops and community initiatives that ensure that community facilities are in place, such as village halls. I will be doing many more visits around the country and seeing many more of those.

Waste and Recycling

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matt Vickers]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. The receptacles that we recycle in are a game changer. In Stockton, we have these disposable bags that disappear off down the road whenever it is windy, never to be seen again. Having the right recycling receptacles is important. As a country, we need to look to the councils that do it well, learn the lessons and roll out best practice.

The previous Government kick-started plans for a comprehensive deposit return scheme. It is estimated that UK consumers go through about 14 billion plastic drinks bottles and 9 billion drinks cans every single year, often contributing to our litter epidemic.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend raises the issue of plastic. With the growth of anaerobic digesters dealing with more food waste, energy-from-waste incinerators are now burning more plastic. BBC analysis of five years of real data shows that incinerators are now the dirtiest way to produce power. Does he agree that in dealing with recycling and its growth, we should not be building more incinerators—and in particular not building the Wisbech incinerator?

[Matt Vickers]

I agree wholeheartedly. Putting these plants in the right place is a very big deal—I know how hard my right hon. Friend worked to prevent that. I could not agree more. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update on the roll-out of the deposit return scheme and say when it is set to be delivered.

Of course, it is not just businesses but local communities that can support the Government’s goals to ensure responsible waste disposal.

--- Later in debate ---

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

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship this evening, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) for raising this issue—he has certainly had a busy day, having moved from the Front Bench to the Back Benches—and I thank everyone else who has taken part in the debate.

The Secretary of State has made it clear that resources and waste are a priority issue for DEFRA, and I am pleased to share our plans in this regard. The Government are committed to the transition to a circular economy—a future in which we keep our resources in use for longer, reduce our carbon emissions and invest in critical infrastructure and green jobs in every nation and region, and in which our economy prospers and nature thrives. We want to abandon our linear and unsustainable “take, make, throw” model, which means that we extract resources from the Earth, make things and then throw them away, because there is no such place as “away”. If the whole world consumed resources as we do in the UK, we would need 2.5 times the Earth’s raw materials to sustain our current systems. Meanwhile, nearly 100 million tonnes of residual waste is disposed of annually, and waste crime alone costs our economy £1 billion every year.

That cannot continue. We must and will move toward a system that values longevity, repair and reuse over disposal. In our manifesto, we pledged to reduce waste by moving to a circular economy. That is why we have committed ourselves to developing a circular economy strategy for England, which we will create in partnership with experts from industry, academia, civil society, local government and beyond.

[Steve Barclay]

I am glad that the Minister has described this as a priority. She has a statutory target to halve residual waste, but what she has not mentioned is the impact that will have on mega-incinerators that are being built essentially to burn plastic. Does she accept that more than 30 environmental charities—charities usually linked to her party and the left—are strongly opposed to those incinerators, and will she commit herself to publishing an impact assessment on the effect of reducing residual waste on the need for incinerators?

[Mary Creagh]

I will come on to those points later in my speech, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will intervene if he does not get the satisfaction and clarity that he seeks. Good things come to those who wait.

Let me begin with the strategy. We want to have an economy-wide transformation of our relationship with our resources, which is all about supporting the Government’s missions to kick-start economic growth, make Britain a clean energy superpower, and accelerate the path to net zero through our efforts to tackle waste crime and take back our streets. To answer the question posed by the hon. Member for Stockton West, preventing food waste is key to my Department, and we are reviewing a range of issues associated with food waste in the supply chain. We hope to make further announcements soon.

Let me address the collection and packaging reforms, which the hon. Member outlined. They are an important starting point in transitioning to a circular economy, and we are proud of the steps that we have taken so far. Over the next three years, simpler recycling, extended producer responsibility and the deposit return scheme will deliver transformational change, creating thousands of new jobs and stimulating billions of pounds’ worth of investment. Those three areas make up the three-legged stool of this Government’s plan to kick-start the circular economy, so I will briefly take each one in turn.

The first area is simpler recycling. We recently affirmed our commitment to delivering simpler recycling in England, which will be introduced for businesses from 31 March 2025 and for households from 31 March 2026. This Government inherited legislation introduced by the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) that could have required households to have up to seven bins. As the hon. Member for Stockton West rightly said, some councils have up to 10 bins, but that is because they thought they were doing the right thing, given the signals that were being sent out under the previous Government. That places an unnecessary burden on people and businesses, and unnecessary clutter in everyone’s front and back gardens. We are simplifying the rules to make recycling easier for people, while stimulating growth, maximising the benefits and ending the postcode lottery for recycling. Across England, people will be able to recycle the same materials at home, work or school.

The legislation for simpler recycling has already come into force. To confirm the final details of the policy, we laid regulations before Parliament on 3 December. The policy will support our ambition to recycle 65% of municipal waste by 2035. It is important to remember that figure, because when the last Labour Government brought in the landfill tax reforms in 2002, the original target was to have a recycling rate of 50% by 2015—a target that, sadly, was lost under the previous Government. Ten years on from that date, the target has still not been met.

The policy will also deliver an estimated £11.8 billion-worth of carbon savings between 2024 and 2035. As we have heard, local circumstances differ across the country, so we are making sure that councils and other waste collectors have the flexibility to make the best local choices. We know that local authorities may want to review their waste collection services to ensure that they provide best value for money. As is currently the case, local councils will continue to decide the frequency of waste collections in a way that suits the needs of their local community. The Government’s priority is to ensure that households’ needs are met, so we have recently published guidance to support councils in this area.

The second area is extended producer responsibility for packaging. To help fund simpler recycling, we are introducing in parallel extended producer responsibility for packaging, or pEPR, which will require obligated producers to pay the full end of life costs associated with the packaging that they place on the market. That will bring more than £1 billion of investment into local government waste collections, and incentivise producers to reduce unnecessary packaging and make what they use even more sustainable. Those regulations have now been debated in both Houses. They received unanimous cross-party support and will come into force on 1 January 2025.

The third and final leg is the deposit return scheme—DRS—for drinks containers. We have seen this work in over 50 countries around the world. The DRS will make a real difference to people’s lives by tackling litter and cleaning up our streets. Recycling rates will increase and the drinks industry will benefit from the high quality recycled materials that the DRS will provide. We are committed to delivering a deposit return scheme in England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland in October 2027 and we will continue to work closely with industry partners, the Scottish Government and the Department for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland to launch the scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

What we saw there was a local community campaigning to stop the stink, and I am pleased that the regulator has taken swift action.

On the point raised by the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire about energy from waste, his Government failed to reach their recycling targets. We do not support over-capacity of energy from waste, and incineration should be an option only for waste that cannot be prevented, reused or recycled, such as medical waste or nappies.

In the waste hierarchy, recovering energy from waste is still preferable to disposing of waste in landfill. It maximises the value of the resources being disposed of, and avoids the greater environmental impact of landfill, which continues for generations, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee). We cannot solve today’s problems by storing them up for future generations, so we will shortly publish our analysis of the need for further energy from waste development in England, following delivery of our reforms. However, I make it clear that it is for the relevant planning authority to determine the need for proposed developments. Our capacity assessment will help inform decision making on planning.

[Steve Barclay]

In a classic example of joined-up government, many of these incinerators, including the Wisbech incinerator, are classed as nationally significant infrastructure, so decisions on them are made by the Government, not devolved locally. I welcome the Minister saying that she does not support over-capacity of incineration, just as I welcome her ambition to increase recycling, but given that she wants increased recycling, there will be over-capacity of incineration. We need to see the impact assessment so that we can see the trajectory, and can see the increasing rate at which waste will be recycled. We can then avoid the over-capacity. When will we see that impact assessment, so that we do not have too much capacity in incineration?

[Mary Creagh]

I am a bit mystified by the right hon. Gentleman’s question, because he put a stop to planning decisions on energy from waste. Did he not conduct an impact assessment beforehand?

[Steve Barclay]

I do not want to intervene too much, but as a point of clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was recused as the Minister, so I certainly did not make that decision. I am making the argument against incineration; I would have thought that the Minister would support that, because she wants more recycling. Over 30 environmental charities say that incineration is the dirtiest way to produce energy—that it is as dirty as coal. Five years of analysis by the BBC found it was the dirtiest. I am highlighting the contradiction between the Government saying that they are for the environment and clean energy, and there being a risk of over-capacity in incineration, which burns plastics and is harmful to the environment. I am highlighting that contradiction and saying that that is the reason why the Government should publish an impact assessment.

Farming and Food Security

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House recognises the real and immediate challenges faced by British farmers as a result of wet weather and rising costs; notes the importance of food security as an essential component of national security in an increasingly uncertain world; regrets that the £50 million extension of the Farming Recovery Fund is yet to be paid out; is concerned that reports suggest the farming budget is to be cut by £100 million; calls on the Government to confirm that the full £50 million of additional Farming Recovery Fund support for those flooded, £75 million for Internal Drainage Boards to protect agricultural land from floods and storms, and £220 million allocated to technology and productivity schemes announced earlier this year will be used in full and without delay, that no reduction to the farming budget will be made and that any underspends will be rolled forward as in previous years, and to keep farming and food production high on the agenda by committing to continue to host the annual Farm to Fork Summit in Downing Street, continuing to publish the annual food security index, and appointing a Tenant Farming Commissioner; and further calls on the Government to secure the long-term future of domestic food production by ensuring the best agricultural land is protected from inappropriate development, including large solar developments, by tackling rural crime, and by ensuring that the next generation can get into farming by protecting Agricultural Property Relief.

Given the increasing uncertainty in the world, with covid, Ukraine and now the middle east, food security is more important than ever and should be seen as a key part of our national security. Britain’s farmers face real and immediate challenges, which means that the Government must take action now. That is why we have called this debate. Between October 2022 and March 2024, England experienced the most rain in any 18-month period since records began in 1836. In particular, Storm Babet and Storm Henk caused significant damage, leaving thousands of acres under water, and land saturated for prolonged periods. This has prevented many farmers from getting crops into the ground, and where they have been able to do so, their crops have been compromised.

Of course, farmers have done their best to respond, but recent research from the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit and the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board has suggested that England is heading for one of its worst harvests on record. The wheat harvest in England alone is estimated to be down more than 2.2 million tonnes, which represents an 18% reduction since last year, and the total harvest for the five key crops—wheat, winter barley, spring barley, oats and oilseed rape—is set to be down by over 13%, or 3 million tonnes, on the five-year average. We risk being increasingly reliant on imports, and unfortunately there seems to be no relief in sight; 10 English counties experienced the wettest September on record, and input costs remain high. If we do not support our farmers now, many farm businesses say that they are unlikely to survive.

As Secretary of State, I prioritised food production. At the Oxford farming conference, I announced more money, choice and trust for farmers. I increased rates paid under the sustainable farming incentive, and I announced in January that I was introducing new options to better reflect the range of farms.

[Mike Amesbury (Runcorn and Helsby) (Lab)]

In the shadow Secretary of State’s time in office, why did he and the Government of the day fail to get £300 million out of the door and into farms in constituencies such as mine?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay]

I will come on to the underspends, because that is one of the key dividing lines between the two sides of the House. After we came out of the EU, I secured an agreement with the Treasury that all the underspends from the new schemes would remain in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs budget, for farmers and for DEFRA. At the end of this month, in the Budget, we will see whether the Secretary of State has secured the same terms for any underspends.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

We know that the previous Government made a whole raft of commitments that there was no way of paying for, so there is no credibility to the suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman secured something from the discredited Treasury that he was under. The key question is: if that money was so desperately needed, why was it not being spent?

[Steve Barclay]

As we came out of the European Union, new schemes were set up, including the SFI, to support nature and farming. They represented a shift from the EU scheme, under which 50% of the money went to 10% of landowners. We were able to design new schemes. We listened to farmers, and that is why I announced at the farming conference an average increase of 10% in payments, and 50 more choices to better reflect the variety of farms, including upland farms. We responded, but the point is that underspends all remained within the DEFRA budget. The key question, which I am sure the Secretary of State will come to, is whether he will give a similar commitment to the House that any underspends will remain in DEFRA, given that we have just faced the wettest winter in 150 years, and given that in September, 10 counties had the worst rain on record.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

I would add one thing to what the shadow Secretary of State is brilliantly saying: this is a matter for farmers in Herefordshire as much as for those elsewhere. Ross-on-Wye, a rural town, was under water as a result of the floods. Does he share my view that the whole ecosystem ultimately feeds into the river, and into river pollution, on which he took such a lead with the action plan? Does he share my hope that the plan will be supported by the new Government, as well as by the river champion that he put in place?

[Steve Barclay]

I very much agree. My right hon. Friend alludes to one of the key questions being asked by many farmers around the River Wye: what has happened to the £35 million that was announced for farming support around the River Wye? Again, there has been so little detail from this Government, so I hope the Secretary of State is able to give some reassurance to my right hon. Friend.

We also gave farmers other support. In February, we introduced the biggest package of productivity grants, in order to boost the deployment of the latest technology and enhance yields on farms. We improved protections to prevent the best land from being taken out of food production, including through the announcement in May on strengthening the guidance on solar farms. We responded positively to the National Farmers Union’s request through the annual food security index, and we hosted the farm to fork summit in Downing Street.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

rose—

[Steve Barclay]

I know that the clustering of solar farms on some of the best food production land in Lincolnshire is a live issue; I suspect that might be what my right hon. Friend wants to address.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I do not want to get into the debate for and against solar farms, but even those in favour of them should surely agree that we should not have a concentration of them—10,000 acres of them—around one town, namely Gainsborough. Should the Secretary of State not consider such matters in the round, and take all the applications together?

[Steve Barclay]

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

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

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

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Steve Barclay]

I will, and then I will make some progress.

[Dr Johnson]

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

[Steve Barclay]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

As the first ever female director of the National Farmers Union in 100 years, I think I can speak with some credibility here. I represent Tiverton and Minehead, which includes the Quantocks and Exmoor. I have to say, you have some chutzpah—my farmers tell me that you sold them down the river. I say to Government Members that we need to work together on this, because our lot on the Liberal Democrat Benches know more about farming than they do.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that if they use the word “you”, it means me.

[Steve Barclay]

I would never suggest such things of you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I could not quite spot the hon. Lady’s question—it seemed to be more of a statement. I am sure that farmers in Tiverton, as well as those around the country, want to know why the £50 million that was allocated in May has not been given out. The Lib Dems may not care about that money, but Conservative Members want that support for farmers.

Secondly, the £75 million of support for internal drainage boards needs to be deployed in full and without delay. Thirdly, the £220 million allocated for technology and productivity schemes needs to be honoured in full. Fourthly, the Government need to confirm there will be no cuts to the farming budget—an issue that is causing so much concern—so that we do not lose the £2.6 million that has been allocated for this year. Fifthly, we need a commitment from the Government that they will keep the farm to fork summit in Downing Street, they will have the food security index and they will appoint a tenant farming commissioner.

Looking further ahead, the Government must do more to give farmers confidence. That means ruling out the removal or reduction of the agricultural property relief, better protecting farmland from schemes for solar and pylons, and ensuring that food production is central to the land use framework. Only by doing those things can they show that they are backing our farmers and protecting food security, but sadly I fear an urbancentric Government simply will not do that, not least with a Labour Secretary of State who is currently getting pushed around by his Cabinet colleagues. It is only this Conservative team who are, and will be, a voice for rural businesses, rural communities and our rural way of life, with improved farming production at its very heart.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Both in that answer and in the earlier answer from the environment Minister, the hon. Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), the House has heard Government Front Benchers say that no decision has been taken on the farming budget. However, media reports say that the Chancellor has decided to cut the farming budget by £100 million, as she prioritises her trade union paymasters over farmers. In these first DEFRA questions of the new Parliament will the Minister rule out cuts to the farming budget? Farmers are watching these questions, and need to be able to plan their business and have confidence that the budget will be maintained.

[Emma Hardy]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that it was the previous Government—in fact, the Department for which he was responsible—who underspent the farming budget, despite their promises to spend £2.4 billion a year. That underspend broke a manifesto promise. He will also remember, because it is not all that long ago that he was on the Government Benches, that decisions about the Budget are made as part of the spending review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Saying that the hon. Member “tried to cover up” is suggesting that a Member is lying, and I do not—

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Member cannot raise a point of order now. He has been here long enough to know that they come at the end of questions. [Interruption.] Order. I am dealing with this. We really have to reflect on what we say about other Members in this House, and I would like the Secretary of State to withdraw what he has suggested.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I remind those on the Front Bench that it is topical questions, so questions and answers have to be short and punchy. The thing is, I have to try to get in as many as I can. Let us see a good example of that with the shadow Secretary of State.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The Secretary of State has repeatedly talked tough with the water companies, yet the Water (Special Measures) Bill that he announced actually weakens a number of measures, such as the automatic fines for category 1 and 2 prosecutions, and removes the unlimited penalties that would apply. He said that the review of water regulation would strengthen requirements on water firms; will he therefore confirm to the House that there will be no regulatory easements as part of that review?

[Steve Reed]

The very Bill that the right hon. Gentleman referred to strengthens regulation. We will be looking further at regulation through the review. The intention will be to make it stronger, not weaker, because it was far too weak under the previous Government and we need to turn that around.

Planning, the Green Belt and Rural Affairs

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Friday 19th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I begin by congratulating the Secretary of State and the ministerial team on their appointments and wishing them well. I also pay tribute to the hon. Members for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) and for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), who did a lot of the hard yards in opposition and missed out on ministerial roles this time.

I pay tribute to the excellent maiden speeches we have heard on both sides of the House today. We started with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), who I was delighted to hear has significant rural areas in his constituency and has an interest in this sector. We heard from the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), who gave the House an informed tour of his constituency. We had a fantastic speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), who brings real practical and professional experience to rural affairs and rightly focused on the need to tailor policies to the needs of rural communities.

We heard from the new hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer), who was very generous in his tribute to his much-respected predecessor. We had a brilliant speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), who highlighted the importance of the rural economy and water quality—what an asset she will be in the House. We also heard from the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), who talked about farming as the beating heart of his constituency, while the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) spoke about the radicalism of a former figure from Middleton—I hope that will inform her relationship with the Government Whips Office moving forward.

We had two outstanding closing speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) spoke about the importance of infrastructure in the rural economy, and focused particularly on planning. We also witnessed the huge experience, which is respected across the House, that the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) brings as a surgeon. I know he will be an important voice in health debates, among others. I am delighted that all those new Members chose to make their maiden speeches on the issue of rural affairs in the King’s Speech.

Labour campaigned on a slogan of change, but they are offering only uncertainty to farming and fishing communities. It is no surprise that, just last night, the president of the National Farmers Union said that farmers are facing a “cliff edge” and are

“being kept up at night”

by the uncertainty. That uncertainty is not because the Labour Government have not had time to prepare their policies for farming and fishing; it is because the issue is not a priority for a Labour Government. That is why the Labour manifesto had just 87 words on farming and nothing at all on fishing. It is why this King’s Speech has nothing for the farming and fishing communities. It is why the Government have not even given any dates for when this uncertainty will end. We should be clear in this House that that is an active choice. It is a point that the Government have chosen to prioritise, in contrast to the prioritisation we were willing to make with the additional funding that we committed.

Is it not all the more ironic that just a few years ago, the now Prime Minister went to the NFU and admitted that farming and rural affairs had for too long been an afterthought for the Labour party and promised to change that? That is an early example of promised change that is not then delivered. We can see that uncertainty in the farming budget. The Government have made no commitment to what the budget will be, or whether they are continuing it or increasing it. We were willing to make decisions to prioritise £1 billion of additional funding over this Parliament. There is nothing from Labour on that, leaving farmers uncertain. Can the Secretary of State confirm what his budget will be? Does he even know? Has the Chancellor told him? Can he even tell the House when he might know? We do not even know when the spending review will be. He is probably as much in the dark as the rest of us.

What about the uncertainty on food security? We made commitments with the food security index, the annual farm to fork summit, the food security duty, the biggest ever grants payment, and the additional funding to deal with the wet weather that farmers had recently faced. What is the commitment from the Labour Government on food security? There is nothing in the King’s Speech about legislating for that. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether they intend to legislate and it was just an omission that they did not get around to, or is it something that he is now ruling out?

What about the uncertainty about just how much farmland will be lost as a result of this Government? We know what their 2030 environmental targets are—to triple solar, to increase onshore wind and to increase the pylons connecting to offshore wind—so can the Secretary of State confirm to the House that he will publish before the summer recess an impact assessment on how much farmland will be lost as a result of delivering his 2030 environmental targets? Does he even know?

[Mr Holden]

One cornerstone of the Conservative manifesto was for an underground-first approach to new electricity pylons. That is an important matter for my constituents in Basildon and Billericay. Will my right hon. Friend also highlight to the Government exactly how important that is and try to seek an answer on what their proposals are in this space?

[Steve Barclay]

My right hon. Friend gets to the nub of the issue, because if a Government are promising change, they need to be able to say what the timelines are. They need to say what the budget is and what legislation they will pass to deliver that. On all those things, there is silence in this King’s Speech.

The Labour manifesto has lots of high-sounding things that are hard to disagree with. Labour wants more food security, and says that food security is national security, and we on the Opposition Benches agree. Labour says it wants to raise animal welfare, and we have done a huge amount to do so. That is fine. However, if the Government say they want to end the badger cull, when will they do that? There is nothing in the King’s Speech on that, so what are the timelines? Dairy farmers would like to know. Will the Secretary of State publish the analysis from the chief veterinary officer on what the impact of ending the cull would be on the trajectory? We know that the current approach has seen TB cases come down in England from 34,500 in 2018 to below 20,000. Certainly the advice that I had was that vaccinations would not be ready for some time. Will he publish the trajectory and tell us when the cull will end?

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

You need to respect the science.

[Steve Barclay]

Of course we respect the science. The hon. Gentleman chunters from a sedentary position, but I presume he will get the same science brief—in a way, he makes my point—that I got from the chief vet, which was that the vaccinations were not ready and the cull was being effective. In fact, we only need to look at Labour’s policy in Wales, where the opposite is happening, to see that. I hope that, as he represents Cambridge, he will follow the science, because the Government made a commitment that does not. Perhaps that is the sort of change they mean—a change from what they committed to in the manifesto. It did not take long.

Speaking of things at a high level that no one can disagree with, the Government talk about making more use of public sector procurement. Again, the Conservatives not only agree with that, but we have helped the Government with it. The former Member for Colchester did a fantastic review, the Quince review, looking at how that will be done, but the Government are silent on the funding for that. Will it be funded out of the budget of the Department for Health and Social Care, the Department for Education, the Ministry of Defence, local government—or will it come out of the Secretary of State’s budget? It is difficult for him to say, because he does not even know what his budget will be.

The reality is that we have empty slogans from a party that does not care about the rural economy. The Government are not giving clarity to farming and fishing; they barely mentioned farming in their manifesto, and they did not even mention fishing. This King’s Speech does nothing for the farming and fishing communities. The decisions that we have seen so far take vast amounts of farmland out of food production in order to prioritise the eco-zealotry that we have heard so often in this House. I hope the Secretary of State will give the clarity that is sadly lacking in the King’s Speech on what the Government will do—and when—on the budget, on food procurement, and on dairy farmers and the badger cull, and will end the uncertainty that the president of the NFU and so many others in the farming and fishing community currently face.