Draft Official Controls (Fees and Charges) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 Draft Plant Health (Fees) (England) and Official Controls (Frequency of Checks) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2024 General Committees

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. The Labour party recognises the need to ensure the UK’s biosecurity. Preventing the entry of diseased organic matter and pests into this country is extremely important. Many UK businesses have had a real trading disadvantage for some time; we have had an asymmetrical arrangement with other countries in the European Union. We will not be opposing this legislation, but we do have serious concerns about the border target operating model and, more specifically, the provisions made in these statutory instruments.

Concerns have been vigorously and emphatically articulated by a number of stakeholders. Many who contacted me said that their original response to the consultation on the border trade operating model had, they felt, been ignored, and so they did not respond to this specific consultation. That is a real shame. There is a real risk that these new changes will lead to increased costs for food importers and an increase in prices at the till. Hard-pressed consumers have already suffered a year of skyrocketing food inflation. Does the Minister anticipate that these changes will lead to food price increases? If not, how can he reassure those in the sector who feel that it might? If the increased costs that these charges will generate is not passed on to the consumer through higher prices, does he expect all companies affected to simply be able to absorb those costs? What evidence does he have for that?

I am particularly concerned about UK companies that import on a smaller scale or rely on imports of niche products, which may find it challenging to absorb those costs and charges. The charges facilitated by the official controls regulations should be considered in the broader context of increased costs that British importers have been subject to since 2021, when the UK officially left the trading block. Indeed, the Government have already conceded that the extra costs incurred by businesses due to the post-Brexit border controls on animal and plant products imported from the EU would be as much as £330 million annually. Financial experts such as Allianz Trade estimate a much higher bill, however, and have suggested that consumers will be forced to spend as much as £2 billion on a range of food from the continent when the new border checks come into force at the end of this month.

I am afraid that I do not buy the Government’s claims that businesses will save £500 million through efficiencies created by digitisation. That strikes me and others as a considerable overestimation, particularly if the extra costs, disruption and paperwork that any new system inevitably brings are factored in, as well as the general hit on competitiveness that businesses fear they will suffer as a result of these charges. Will the Minister clarify which hidden costs were factored into the estimate of digitisation savings?

Our colleagues in the House of Lords also expressed their concern about the impact of the changes particularly on small businesses in their recent report on this impending legislation. Will the Minister explain why there was no impact assessment on the changes?

It is worth reminding the Committee that 30% of food consumed in the UK comes from the EU. Is the Minister worried that there is a risk that all these changes will lead to confusion, delays and further chaos at border points, which could have a significantly detrimental impact on fresh produce or produce that requires specific controlled temperatures? This presents the possibility of a return to the food shortages we have seen in recent years.

If those on the remain side of the Brexit referendum had warned of empty supermarket shelves becoming a regular sight in post-Brexit Britain, they would have been accused of engaging in “Project Fear”. It is extraordinary how quickly we have become accustomed to that. A future Labour Government will look to improve food security.

Many logistics businesses have been pressing the Government since the Brexit vote for detail on the level of charges and how and when they will be implemented on imported goods. The Government said that the common user charge rate would be confirmed by December 2023 at the latest. The additional three-month delay has further hampered the ability of logistics businesses to prepare. Will the Minister explain why the common user charge rate was so delayed and what impact he thinks that will have had on the ability of businesses to plan ahead? It is the middle of April: we are discussing changes that will be implemented in just a couple of weeks.

Businesses are still in the dark about some key features of the new BTOM. The British Chambers of Commerce has said that there is a real problem with communication, adding that:

“Until businesses on both sides of the Channel have all the information it’s very difficult for them to plan ahead.”

It slammed the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for failing to listen to the industry over these changes generally. Does the Minister regret that the UK’s largest business representative body believes that it has not been listened to by his Department? Will he undertake to now listen to those businesses most affected by this suite of policies? Will the Minister allay the fears and concerns of businesses whose future depends on these decisions by informing and reassuring them on a series of questions that still require clarification, and will he do so urgently?

On the plant health and official controls regulations, it is vital that plants and other commercial produce that enter Great Britain are subject to the appropriate checks and inspections on arrival to these shores. In my constituency, Chesterfield, we are blessed with many green-fingered enthusiasts, several of whom won awards in the Chesterfield in Bloom awards last year. Our town would be much poorer for their absence. I would hate, as I am sure we all would, any legislation passed in this place to make it harder for these assiduous horticulturists to access the wares they need to realise those vibrant visions.

It is essential that the checks on the organic produce that we import are carried out conscientiously and efficiently, so I have several questions for the Minister. Plants and plant product imports are valued at around £753 million every year, so it is crucial that the legislation works. Many hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs depend on it.

As we know, one of the key changes in the move to the border target operating model is that inspections of many plants from the European Union, including all those categorised as high risk, will now take place at border control posts, rather than at the goods’ place of destination. The regulations set out the goods of medium risk that will be subject to checks, but many in the sector are deeply concerned about the move.

In a letter to the Secretary of State that I have seen, the Horticultural Trades Association raises grave concerns about border control posts’ ability to handle the volume and speed of goods that they will receive, and to ensure the free flow of imports. The Minister spoke about reducing friction, but the association is worried about friction increasing. It further cites concerns about the capability and equipment available at border control posts to undertake the complex checks. What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that the new system can manage the volume of checks that will be required? Does the new system have the ability to check the products now defined as medium risk? Does the Minister anticipate that this will lead to further delays, and what assurances can he give to importers that are worried about further Government-created delays to products being received?

The changes set out in the legislation will alter fees at a time of great financial hardship, when customers are battling with the cost of living crisis and businesses small and large are attempting to grapple with the inflation we have seen under this Government. The legislation will result in a material change to the cost of importing for businesses that have been hampered by years of uncertainty about their ability to trade. Will the Minister consider conducting an impact assessment into the changes made by the legislation to ensure that the Government can provide any support necessary to the industry?

The legislation makes use of a tight definition of a “final user”, as a person acting on their own behalf and outside of their professional interests. As the Minister will be aware, the National Farmers Union proposes that final user be redefined to also mean a business that imports plants or plant-based products that are for its own purposes and that never leave its site. Goods that will not leave a business premises clearly pose a smaller biosecurity risk than those intended for broader commercial use. Will the Minister therefore set out why the Government are not considering the approach suggested by the National Farmers Union, which might reduce bureaucracy for smaller and medium-sized enterprises?

The core function of the changes is to adjust inspection rates and relevant fees, and to define scope. Prices have been incredibly volatile over recent months and years. That has posed economic challenges domestically, but the challenges are particularly acute for those operating in international markets. It is important that a balance is struck between risk appetite, businesses’ ability to trade, and checks on goods. How often does the Minister plan to review the legislation to ensure that businesses and customers are paying a fair price for services and that we can have confidence in the risk rating of products?

The Opposition will not oppose the changes, but I hope that the Government understand the need for further consideration of the impact they may have for businesses and the public. I look forward, as I am sure the industry does, to hearing the Minister’s response to my questions.

[Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. The two statutory instruments are part of the Government’s new border target operating model, which will manage import controls. Controls on the border are important, and it is important that dangerous and illegal meat and other products are seized at the border.

Evidence from the Dover port health team is that there has been an increase in the risks associated with the safety of food and drink, partly as a result of global food chain insecurity following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and partly because of poor slaughter, pesticide and goods transportation practices in some other countries that can lead to risks to human and animal health. Having the right risk-based checks in place is important to protect our country, our farmers and our food supply chains.

Despite the many hours over a great number of months that have been spent by informed and expert channel trade businesses; the Port of Dover; Dover Port Health Authority; the Kent and Medway business advisory board; food and drink organisations such as the Chilled Food Association; logistics businesses including Logistics UK; and myself, the Government have failed to listen to the representations made about the proposals. I believe those representations would make the border arrangements cheaper and stronger than those that have been proposed.

The statutory instruments risk creating a weaker new regulatory environment for decision making around fees and charges, and less control at the vital point of entry into our country. They must be viewed alongside another statutory instrument, which is currently subject to the negative procedure and therefore not open to debate, but which directly impacts the interpretation of the statutory instruments that we are considering. That other statutory instrument, which is still open for hon. Members to object to, as I have done—I encourage them to consider doing so—removes common-sense requirements that say that border checks should be done at the border.

The new arrangements under the Official Controls (Location of Border Control Posts) (England) Regulations 2024 allow the checking point for the border to be some distance from the point of entry at the border, with no obligation in the regulations to demonstrate, for example, how transit biosecurity risks will be managed if a checking facility is some way away, as the new regulations will allow.

That is directly relevant to the Committee, because the common user charge being imposed at the Dover border under the statutory instruments that we are considering is to pay for such a remote facility. The new border controls for Dover, to which the statutory instruments relate, will not be carried out at the point of entry in Dover, but in Ashford, some 22 miles away —basically the same distance as from Dover to France. As we have heard and as I will further explain, the basis for the calculation of the proposed costs and fees has caused considerable industry concern.

First, the draft Official Controls (Fees and Charges) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 amends EU regulation 2017/625, which relates to the calculation and enforcement of charges and fees on imported animals and animal feeds. Regulation 2(2)(a) removes the requirement under the current regulation for fees and charges to be collected and enforced at border control posts.

[Mr Perkins]

I am listening with great interest to what the hon. Lady says. Is it her contention that the instruments before us are necessary but do not go far enough, or is she suggesting that they will make things worse?

[Mrs Elphicke]

I am grateful for that question. As I said in my opening remarks, it is my view that the regulations are weaker than those currently in place and that the new environment, in the context of the entirety of the new border target operating model, is less strong in protecting our country. I will go on to explain the measures to which that applies.

As I said, regulation 2(2)(a) removes the requirement on fees and charges to be collected and enforced at border control posts. We heard from the Minister that the intention is that they will now be collected online. However, the regulation does not specify where or how the fees will be collected, or whether it will still be possible for the fees to be collected in person at the border as well as online. Given the overall lack of maturity in some of the digital border control posts, that is clearly of concern to some businesses.

Regulation 2(2)(b) then removes the need for a competent authority to be “objective and non-discriminatory” when determining the application of fees. It allows a competent authority to reduce or waive fees with regard to any consideration that it deems relevant. That has given rise to concerns that it could give undue power to a competent authority to change prices on goods that are entering the country. Some businesses may be arbitrarily favoured or punished with additional fees, which will disrupt trade and may discourage businesses from trading with the UK if they deem those fees to be arbitrary or unfair.

I am sure that the Minister will reassure me that that is not the intent of the regulations, but it is none the less a grave concern. It should be noted that the removal of the objective and non-discriminatory criteria risks anti-competitive behaviour in the channel trade. The authority to which the Government have decided to give checking powers is home to the international rail terminal stop for Eurotunnel, which Ashford has been negotiating to get reopened.

The Ashford stop—the new border control point—is considerably closer to Eurotunnel than the Port of Dover. Why does that matter? As the Dover Port Health Authority has set out repeatedly to the Government, the overwhelming majority of the goods expected to be checked—around 90% of them—will come in through Dover, compared with around 10% coming in through Eurotunnel. Yet the new border control point is a great distance from Dover and much closer to a much less significant point of entry. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why the Government feel it necessary to give themselves powers to act in an arbitrary and discriminatory fashion, and why that change in regulation is required.

Regulation 3(a) will change the wording of article 81 of the existing EU regulation. This relates to the determination of costs. It changes the word “shall” to “may” and states that the costs may be determined on

“the costs of official controls and costs connected with official controls, including, but not limited to”,

and then sets out some features. That means that the previous criteria, which have been in place for some time, are now not binding, and a competent authority, which will not be the Dover Port Health Authority, can determine the charges to be placed on goods for whatever reason it decides. The SPS certification working group raised issues with that, alongside concerns about the common user charge being imposed through the regulations, as there has been no transparency on the cost basis for the new inspections.

The current EU regulation is explicit in what inspection charges can be costed. These are specified in article 81, including staff salaries, the cost of facilities and equipment, consumables and tools, services delegated to other bodies, the cost of training, the cost of travel, and costs associated with testing in labs. The statutory instrument turns those required and limiting criteria into simply guidelines, which means that they are not the only way that costings for inspections can be determined, and the competent authority can use whatever reason it likes—it would not be limited in the way it is now—in order to change and charge inspection costs.

That means that there may be differences in the charges for inspection. Ultimately, they will be more expensive than the current checks and processes. This has raised concerns, as has been mentioned, that prices will rise and supply chains could be disrupted, which may have an impact on the UK’s food supply. Considering that the UK imports more than 40% of its food, and, as I have underlined, the Port of Dover plays a very significant part in our trade with Europe, this statutory instrument has the potential to be quite significant to the UK’s food supply.

The anti-competitive potential for this approach has been highlighted in discussion with trade businesses and the Port of Dover over many months. I would like the Minister to comment on what the port and industry have had to say. They say that the level of the charge is eye-wateringly high at £29 for shipments of a single commodity, and up to £145 for multi-commodity shipments. That means groupage in terms of how the trade operates. What we have already seen over the last couple of years is a change in shipments in terms of groupage and non-groupage facilities. There is significant concern that the groupage costs and the multi-commodity shipment costs will particularly impact small and medium-sized enterprises, as we have heard. By contrast, the charge that the Dover Harbour Board would levy on a lorry for such purposes would be £19, so there is a significant multiple of the charges currently faced.

Then there is the legal limitation on DEFRA’s statutory power to recover costs. Over-recovery is unlawful. DEFRA therefore needs to be transparent about what the costs are. It is the view of industry that it is simply not credible that the cost of operating a lorry park and a few checks is seven times higher than the cost of operating checks at the eastern docks in Dover, which already have heavy machinery and multi-storey infrastructure. It should be remembered that the new cost that will be levied is not the whole cost that industry will bear because additional charges will also be levied for examination and other costs.

That is a matter that Logistics UK has drawn attention to, because it is concerned about the disparity and the risk of significant disruption in costs between Government-run facilities and commercially-run border control points. It has said in its most recent briefing this month that commercial ports have yet to make public their fee structures. Logistics UK is calling for commercial ports to get visibility of the import of products, animals, food and feed systems to know which loads contain SPS goods, which are eligible for checks and charges at border control points. Logistics UK is also concerned that differing charging structures for a national import controls process could lead to a diversion of trade and increased admissions.

As I represent the area of Dover and Deal, it is of grave concern if a consequence of the new changes would be any kind of diversion or disruption to what is the most successful operation in terms of cross-channel trade.

The risk of market distortion is being raised by the Port of Dover, by businesses and by the people most closely involved who have made representation after representation, which has not been listened to.

The concern also is that if there is a change in the routes of traffic coming into the UK, this will also be a mis-analysis in terms of the costs and preparations made by the Government. They are preparing something without, as we have already heard, having made the impact assessment, which is necessary in relation to these important changes.

Finally, the Government have already set the user charge without having any operations up and running at the new facility. By contrast, the facility at Dover is long established and there is a state-of-the-art plant health facility that has already been paid for by taxpayers. Instead of using that, the Government have guessed the amount of the charge in a situation where it is legally able only to pass on costs incurred. I am interested to hear from the Minister how the costs will be reviewed and what steps will be taken to ensure that there is transparency, which there has not been in the process to date, about how those costs are reached and also that businesses will not be charged more than the running costs that are required.

Before I leave the topic of the common user charge, I should just say that the Allianz Trade organisation has suggested that there will be a total of £2 billion in additional costs, so these changes are not small. It is important that what seem to be very small changes in the statutory instruments will potentially have a huge impact on the border.

It has been announced that the Ashford facility is intended to be the new border control facility. It is some 22 miles away and is a remote, non-proximate facility. With regard to the new official controls, the Government have said that they would prefer this new, untested health authority, local authority, in Ashford to be managing these critical new processes for the country. No full impact assessment has been made, and that is noted in the statutory instrument. It is my view that a full impact assessment should be made, given the scale of the estimated costs—£2 billion—and given the potential impact and given the risks that so many businesses have raised with the Government.

Taking into account all the measures of inspection and the other port costs, businesses such as those represented by the SPS certification working group are left unsure as to what the total costs might be and how they can properly plan for this change. It is very late in the day indeed, notwithstanding the fact that this change has been a long time coming, for the Government to begin to inform business about how this might operate.

Let me turn briefly to the other statutory instrument before us, the Plant Health (Fees) (England) and Official Controls (Frequency of Checks) (Amendment) Regulations 2024. These regulations fail to list Dover as a relevant port. Considering that 18 million tonnes of cargo—mostly from the EU—comes in through Dover, the failure to include Dover as a relevant port is simply not sensible. The freight liaison group has been clear that the statutory port health function, which legally and operationally rests with Dover Port Health Authority, should continue to operate in full.

I have outlined in brief some of the very serious concerns that have been raised with me and with Ministers over a long time, but which have not been fully addressed to date. As I am not permitted to be a formal member of this Committee today, I cannot, as I would choose to do, vote against these statutory instruments. However, I hope that other Members may take time to reflect, note the concerns raised and weigh the gravity of the subject matter, because it affects food safety, security, businesses and a vital trading pathway that benefits our entire country.

[Sir Mark Spencer]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Chesterfield, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover for their interventions and thoughts. First, I will say that we have worked closely with businesses to get this right—in the design phase, through the graduated implementation, and with practical tips to make importing as smooth as possible where checks are needed. Businesses indicated that they needed time to prepare for these changes, so we revised the timeline for introducing controls on EU goods, and our phased approach gives them the time to adapt.

We continue to engage with stakeholders across all sanitary and phytosanitary sectors within the UK and across the EU, and with trading partners around the world, to raise awareness of the border target operating model. Information is being shared through a series of live and virtual engagement events and communications detailing the actions required. Online guidance is available at gov.uk. We will, of course, adapt a carefully calibrated approach to enforcement of the new controls that minimises the risk of disrupting trade flows, with an emphasis on educating and supporting businesses to comply rather than enforcing over-vigorously in the first instances.

One of the questions raised was why checks cannot continue at the point of destination, given the impact on the horticultural sector. The place of destination scheme was always intended to be a temporary measure to facilitate the EU exit transition for EU goods. New controls have been phased in over time to give businesses time to adapt their supply chains and import pathways accordingly. The draft border target operating model was produced and developed in collaboration with those stakeholders, and therefore the proposals and timelines have had industry input.

From 30 April, the place of destination scheme will come to an end. High and medium-risk plants and plant products must come through a border control post or designated control point where identity and physical checks will be carried out. Border control posts have long since been used to manage import inspections of goods from non-EU countries, and are an essential component of our biosecurity regime.

Turning to the question about what resources we put in to deal with the plant health checks at the border, import checks of high-risk plants and plant products imported into Great Britain from the EU were introduced on 1 January 2021, recognising the relevant biosecurity risk that such goods pose. More than 55,000 high-risk plants were imported from the EU in the past six months, which were subject to a risk-based import check, including more than 10,000—about 19%—that received physical checks. More than 350 consignments of EU high-risk plants were intercepted, including 131 due to the presence of a quarantine pest or disease, and the remainder related to incorrect health documentation. We will continue to work closely with the Animal and Plant Health Agency to ensure that we get those regulations right as we move forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dover asked about Sevington, which is 22 miles away from the Port of Dover. The legislation allows for border control posts to be located away from the point of entry in specific circumstances, and processes will be put in place to mitigate appropriately any additional biosecurity risks that result from Sevington’s inland location. Where a physical check is required, goods cannot be legally placed on the UK market until the load has been taken to the border control post, inspected and cleared. An instruction to attend the border control post for an inspection constitutes a legal requirement, and should a vehicle fail to attend the border control post, officials can require the return or destruction of the goods, or for the relevant local authority to carry out controls such as an identity or physical check. Any placing of the goods on the market would be illegal, and the relevant local authority would be able to take the appropriate action, such as a recall from sale and potential legal action.

[Mr Perkins]

Before the Minister moves on, he has explained what will happen, but he has not really explained why. The hon. Member for Dover made a number of points about why she felt the move might be a bad idea for security and the facilities at Dover. Will the Minister expand a little more on why that has happened, rather than just on what will happen?

[Sir Mark Spencer]

There has been a lot of discussion with industry and the sector to get to the right point. What matters is not the location of where those goods are inspected, but that they are definitely inspected and that we tackle this on a risk-based basis. Where there is high risk, clearly we need to ensure that those checks are physically taking place at a location within the UK before they reach the open market; where there is low risk, we try not to intervene too much, so that we allow trade to flow. I think that the debate over where that check takes place is less important than the fact that those checks do take place and that UK phytosanitary security is kept at its maximum level.

Turning to costs, there is a commitment to cost recovery. The existing provisions of the official controls regulation still specify that charges should not exceed costs. That remains untouched. We can only recover costs; we should not be able to make a profit from doing so. The rates will be reviewed quarterly and recalibrated annually to address any over-recovery. The Government will keep the rates under review and will continue to consider the context of the charge on businesses of all sizes across the sectors through policy evaluation. Quarterly reviews will be undertaken in the first year of implementation to monitor the import notification volumes, levels of payment compliance and import flow through planned Government-run BCP facilities. It is something that we have thought about a lot. That is why we introduced the cap. We were conscious of the impact on SMEs, and that is why we put in the cap.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Chesterfield, asked about the impact that this might have on food inflation. Our calculation is such that over three years, we anticipate a 0.2% impact on food inflation. As we become more efficient and businesses understand how this will operate, we hope that the impact will be mitigated over time.

In closing, I say that we continue to have our ears open and to listen to industry, and we will continue to work with them.

[Mr Perkins]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way before he sits down. He said that he will continue to listen to industry. The hon. Member for Dover and I both asked why there had not been an impact assessment. It might have better enabled him to listen to industry had he done an impact assessment. Will he explain why there was no impact assessment?

[Sir Mark Spencer]

There has been a huge amount of consultation and working with the sector to get to this point. I think that that was the right way of doing this, of listening and building the model together, trying to understand the challenges that the sector faces. My commitment is that we will continue to have those discussions and to listen to industry, working with them to ensure that this works as efficiently as possible. With that, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Official Controls (Fees and Charges) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.

DRAFT PLANT HEALTH (FEES) (ENGLAND) AND OFFICIAL CONTROLS (FREQUENCY OF CHECKS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2024

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Plant Health (Fees) (England) and Official Controls (Frequency of Checks) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.—(Sir Mark Spencer.)

Oral Answers to Questions

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

It is clear from what we have heard that the Minister is here to tell us how well the Government and the water companies are doing. Meanwhile, out there in the real world, the recent “State of Our Rivers” report exposed that not one English river is in a good overall condition. The capital’s water supplier is on the brink of collapse, and the only solution that the Government are even considering was stolen from the Labour party. Is it not the truth that what Britian’s rivers really cannot afford is five more years of this useless Government?

[Robbie Moore]

When the Leader of the Opposition says that he would want Wales to be his blueprint if Labour gets into power in England, I fear for this country. We have seen far worse water pollution under Welsh Labour, as has already been said. We will continue with our plan for water, which is about more investment, stronger regulation and much tougher enforcement against those who pollute.

South West Water

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Henderson. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp) for securing today’s important debate.

I must declare an interest: I surf. I surfed on Sunday on a beach that South West Water’s website advised it was safe to surf on and had been for 24 hours. However, a well-known campaign group assured me that it had a sewage alert on it. This happens week after week. A campaign group has chosen to misrepresent the data it has, issuing sewage alerts when the combined storm overflows run and scaring people from entering our beautiful waters. Yes, we would all like the combined storm overflows to not run so often, but they are over 95% rainwater, and on most of North Devon’s stunning surf beaches they rush out into the Atlantic ocean. It does not take 48 hours for the tide to sort that out. The recommended gold standard for removing overflow waters is one tidal rotation, which is 12.5 hours.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank South West Water for the work it has done to date, which saw Croyde, one of the jewels of the surf crown, move from having “good” to “excellent” bathing water quality last year. I also thank the company for working with the event organisers—the ones who accepted—over the Christmas period to try to get our big Christmas swims out safely. Huge confusion is being caused on our beaches, with a Victorian bathing water season still in place, meaning that the most accurate data from the Environment Agency is not available from September through to May. We are a hardy bunch in North Devon. We are out all year round.

With that in mind, I want to focus on the serious problem that occurred in North Devon just three weeks ago, when there was a raw sewage spill from a sewage treatment works due to an electrical fault caused by a contractor on site. This resulted in six hours of raw sewage running into a large river that runs straight out to sea. Yes, there are questions for South West Water about the incident, but accidents do happen. South West Water reported it in line with all procedures.

The Environment Agency recommended closing four beaches and posted details of the sewage incident on its website. Unfortunately, it informed only one of the two councils that needed to be notified. No one told people on the beaches. The well-known campaign group, which we would think would rush to issue a sewage alert, did nothing of the sort. Its “sewage alert” has no definition; it literally means that the storm overflow had gone at some point in the previous 48 hours. The group chooses not to use the information that is available to it from the Environment Agency, which details when there is a real sewage pollution issue. In that respect, I have an issue with the South West Water website as well, which only includes data on its own storm overflows. However, it is at least clear that that is what the company is doing.

Most people do not use the Environment Agency website, which is not a fancy app that says when there is a problem. On that day, although we now know that sewage was being released, the campaign group that apparently prides itself on supporting surfers did not use the data available to it and surfing lessons went ahead.

Many people who regularly use the beaches in North Devon gave up on the campaign app some time ago. One surf school said, “We’d never go surfing if we listened to them.” I ask the Minister this question: what more can be done urgently to provide accurate information to those wishing to bathe or surf at this time of year? I urge the campaign group to think a bit harder about the information it is spreading—

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but she has mentioned many times this “campaign group”. I assume she means Surfers Against Sewage, but can she be clear for the record whom she is being critical of?

[Selaine Saxby]

I am happy to clarify, but by the same token the group does not actually like it when I mention it by name.

As I was saying, I urge the group to think a bit harder about the information it is spreading and at least try to issue a sewage alert when there actually is sewage. I say that because when the group set itself up 40 years ago, it ran a brilliant campaign and quite rightly so, as there was a lot of work to do. However, the group now privately states: “With regard to the beaches in your constituency, we totally agree that huge improvements have been made to water quality there and in many places around the country.” However, the group does not like me repeating that in public, as it undermines its very existence.

Yes, South West Water has more to do. I want to know how that incident at Ashford and two more incidents at Croyde over Christmas happened. Most of all, however, I want people to have easy access to accurate information about when it is safe to enter the water on some of the finest beaches in the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Henderson. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp) on securing this debate. I have spent many summer holidays in his constituency over the years, so it was great to hear those names.

This issue is vital, so I welcome the opportunity to discuss the performance of South West Water in more detail. There are lessons for us to learn about the whole sector by examining this case, but many of the issues that have been raised are specific to the south-west. Although there are strong opinions on this issue, there were some very valuable contributions to what has been an excellent debate.

The first point made by the hon. Member for East Devon that is worth repeating is the fact that across the country, many people working for water companies have become the victims of harassment. They are not in any way responsible, and I echo his point about that. He welcomed, as others did, the recent increase in funding for the Environment Agency. However, the context is that the Environment Agency had a 50% cut from 2010 to 2022. If it is the case, as I believe it is, that more money for the Environment Agency will improve the quality of its monitoring, it must be accepted that the huge cuts it experienced in the first 12 years of this Government have been a contributory factor.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) spoke about the need for more honesty from South West Water, which other Members repeated. He spoke powerfully about how important the issue is for his constituents. He also invited us to imagine him swimming in various amounts of Lycra, which many people will have enjoyed when thinking about his outdoor swimming. It is important that we reflect on the fact that swimming is key to both the enjoyment of people in the south-west and the economy down there.

The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) reflected on the lack of investment in infrastructure over many years. She also said, in what was a very good speech, that she believed that South West Water had not been honest. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) spoke about the specific challenges in the local area, particularly the fact that it is a popular tourist destination, with the population expanding hugely in the summer months. That has specific consequences, and is not necessarily reflected in who pays the bills. He also questioned where the responsibility for companies stood between shareholders and the general environmental good. Businesses have a statutory responsibility to respond to their shareholders, which is why it is down to Government to have responsibility for ensuring that they perform to environmental standards as well. That informs much of the approach that the Labour party takes.

The hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) identified a failure of investment between 2012 and 2015. She placed responsibility at the feet of the Lib Dems, who were in government with the Tories at that time, but we would say that it has happened throughout the past 14 years. She also took the unusual step of suggesting that the major issue that people were angry about was the performance of the local campaign group, which I have to say is a new development that I was not expecting.

The recent report by the Rivers Trust, “State of Our Rivers”, which was published only last week, shows that the dial overall has not shifted on the health of our waterways. Not a single English river is in good overall health, and that has not changed since the previous report in 2021. A multitude of factors inform water health, but 54% of rich river stretches failed because of activities attributed to the water industry. That simply is not good enough.

Yesterday, along with the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, I spoke at the launch of the election manifesto for the Surfers Against Sewage campaign. It was a shame that the Government were not able to send the Minister, although he was intending to go. It is an important coalition, because the issue is of huge importance to our constituents, particularly to the economy of the south-west. As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton reflected, we heard from Jo Bateman about the powerful campaign that she is fighting for the ability to swim in clean waterways, recognised as an amenity that should be available to us all.

In preparing for this debate, I was pleased to hear about the work of Jayne Kirkham and Perran Moon, Labour’s parliamentary candidates for Truro and Falmouth and for Camborne and Redruth, respectively. They have supported protests and started petitions that add to the community fight to preserve Cornwall’s waterways. Jayne stressed that the discharges into Cornwall’s rivers was impacting on tourism and costing millions alongside the environmental damage.

Many people are concerned that Ofwat’s new growth duty will further reduce its ability to be a force for environmental good. When the Minister responds, I hope that he can set out how he sees that duty working alongside Ofwat’s responsibilities to improve environmental outcomes. Does the Minister agree that the perception that our waterways are not fit to swim in is damaging to growth as it depletes tourist revenue? If so, will he confirm whether he has instructed Ofwat that its new growth duty must mean that no sewage discharge is liable to reduce tourist growth?

[Gordon Henderson (in the Chair)]

Order. May I stop you? I am afraid you have run out of time.

[Mr Perkins]

Okay. Thank you, Mr Henderson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

I find it a huge misfortune that it is Lib Dem policy to get rid of one of the key regulators, Ofwat, as has been confirmed in this debate. We have just given Ofwat powers to take a much more robust approach to dividends and water company bosses’ bonuses, so I fear for the future of holding water companies to account if Lib Dem policy is get rid of it. This Government know that the industry needs to go further and faster to address these issues.

In 2022, data indicated that 6.47% of South West Water storm overflows spilled 100 times or more, which was twice the sector average. That is quite simply unsatisfactory. That is why we have introduced our storm overflows discharge reduction plan—the most ambitious plan to address storm overflows discharges in water company history, which will deliver £60 billion of capital investment by 2050 and target our most important sites, including bathing waters first.

The Government have also driven water companies to ensure that we now have 100% monitoring of storm overflows; that is up from 7% in 2010 under the previous Labour Administration. It was the last Labour Administration who brought out self-monitoring; we want to overturn that as we have better data from the roll-out of 100% monitoring.

However, I recognise the progress happening in the south-west. Indeed, I recently visited a pilot scheme at Combe Martin village with my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), where smart water butts and sustainable drainage had been introduced to better manage rainwater. That was having a positive impact. I commend my hon. Friend on the good work that she has been doing in her constituency, working together with her constituents and with campaign groups to ensure that a partnership-led approach can actively work on the ground when it comes to tackling sewage pollution.

[Mr Perkins]

The Minister mentioned something that some of his colleagues have referred to. Self-monitoring was either a big problem, in which case I do not know why the Government have not got rid of it in the last 14 years, or it was not. He needs to be credible about this. If he is trying to say that self-monitoring is a problem, they should have done something years ago.

[Robbie Moore]

That is why this Government have rolled out 100% monitoring of our storm overflows; once we have the data, we are able to hold failing water companies to account. That is exactly what this Government intend to do through our “Plan for Water”, which is all about more investment, stronger regulation and tougher enforcement.

I also wish to address some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) regarding South West Water’s resilience to drought, as I know many in the region experienced extended hosepipe bans. I am pleased to say that South West Water has informed us that, as of 22 February 2024, the Roadford reservoir is now at 100% capacity and Colliford is at 87%, showing significant improvement. The Environment Agency continues to work with the company on a range of new sources to improve resilience. I recently visited Hawks Tor, a former clay pit, that has been brought into the water supply to try to deal with some of those water resilience issues.

Many Members mentioned the issue of investment. Of course, addressing these concerns requires investment, and this responds to some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). Following a DEFRA commission, Ofwat—which, it seems, the Lib Dems want to abolish—agreed to accelerate £128 million of funding to accelerate smart metering, build nutrient removal systems to improve river water quality and accelerate 15 storm overflow improvements in the Falmouth and Sidmouth catchments.

South West Water’s latest business plans include a significant £2.8 billion package of investment, which Ofwat is now scrutinising to ensure that it will truly deliver for customers and begin to turn its poor record around. Its commitments will also include achieving the lowest level of pollution incidence in the sector and significantly increasing water quality and water resilience by investment in new treatment works, reservoirs and tackling leakage. South West Water must now deliver on those ambitious plans, and this Government will hold it to account every step of the way. I look forward to my next meeting with the chief executive to be able to get an update on those plans.

I also wish to assure the House that the Government and our regulators, Ofwat and the Environment Agency, do not take underperformance lightly. As a result of failing to meet its performance commitments, Ofwat has directed South West Water to return £9.2 million to customers during the financial year of 2024-25, in addition to the £13.3 million returned in the financial year 2022-23. I again reiterate that, if the Lib Dems want to get rid of Ofwat, I am not quite sure who would be directing South West Water to do that.

South West Water was also instructed by Ofwat to produce a service commitment plan to demonstrate how it will meet the commitments made at the start of the current five-year price review period, and that was updated in November 2023. As I have said, I will shortly be meeting the chief executive of South West Water again to discuss progress on its plans and to hold the water company to account on its specific failures on pollution incidents.

When water companies fall short, we will not hesitate to hold them to account. Since 2015, the Environment Agency has secured fines of over £150 million, including a £2.1 million fine for South West Water in April 2023. Furthermore, under the action taken by this Government, we will be strengthening regulation to ensure that regulators have the tools to hold water companies to account. I want to thank all Members for their contributions today, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon for bringing this important debate before the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I agree entirely with what the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said. We welcome the Government’s intentions on peatland, but the idea that this Government, after 14 years, is so fizzing with new ideas that they do not quite have the parliamentary time to get on with acting on those intentions is, candidly, laughable. Will the Minister tell us what is actually happening? We were expecting legislation in this year’s King’s Speech, but it is not there. There is an urgent need for it, and it is supported by industry. Will the Government just get on with implementing one of the few popular policies they have left?

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Gentleman should look at what we are doing on peatland; I have just mentioned it. There is all the work to restore peatlands, both upland and lowland, and all the work on pilot projects so that farmers can transition to new crops to grow on peatland. We have committed to banning the use of peat when parliamentary time allows.

Oral Answers to Questions

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I am grateful for your generosity, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are just grateful that at least some Conservative Members have turned up.

On 20 October over 500 homes in Chesterfield, like hundreds across the UK, were flooded, leading to the tragic death of Mrs Gilbert on Tapton Terrace. Less than a month later, with the impeccable timing that only this accident-prone Government are capable of, the National Audit Office announced that the Government had cut by 40% the number of homes that will be protected from floods by 2027. Will the Secretary of State at least promise the House that he will never again say to a flood victim that the Government are doing all they can?

[Steve Barclay]

I am sure the whole House extends our condolences on the sad loss of Mrs Gilbert. Our investment in flood asset maintenance is up by £220 million. As I said, the previous six-year investment was £2.6 billion. Between 2021 and 2027, we are now investing £5.2 billion. Yes, there have been pressures on the programme through inflation and covid, as the National Audit Office report shows, but what is not in doubt is the increased funding that this Government are putting into flood protection—the £5.2 billion indicates that—alongside the increased funding for flood maintenance.

Water Companies: Executive Bonuses

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Sometimes we witness revelations that are incredibly shocking, yet simultaneously not surprising at all. And so it was with the exposure of this week’s “Panorama” investigation that United Utilities, one of Britain’s largest water companies, had been systematically falsifying its environmental performance to mislead consumers and regulators and to push up profits.

Although Labour had decided to use one of our precious Opposition day debates to discuss water companies and directors’ bonuses in advance of those revelations, they have clearly added to the urgency and salience of the debate. Several Members commented on the fact that the issue has a much higher profile that it did. I pay tribute to Feargal Sharkey, who has done some amazing campaigning and played a significant role in raising the issue of water quality. He has proved that he has not just “a good heart”, but a switched on head as well.

It has been a good debate; what was said was important, as well as what was not said. The demeanour of Government Members spoke more loudly than the words we heard from them. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) mentioned the number of Secretaries of State there have been—we have had six Secretaries of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs since 2019. Interestingly, the newest one, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), could not be bothered to turn up and respond to the debate. The Minister who did respond, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), could not wait to race away and has not returned to this important debate, despite having spoken at its start.

Even more powerful was the row upon row of empty green Benches behind the Minister during the debate. It is clear that Conservative Members of Parliament do not want to be anywhere near here to speak up for their Government’s record on this issue. I have great affection for the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane, but she appeared to inhabit a parallel universe when it came to the state of our water industry. Had she been here to listen to the debate, she would have heard Member after Member reflect the fury of their constituents and of a raft of organisations including the Environment Agency, which last year described the performance of English water companies as “very disappointing”, saying it was

“simply unacceptable to see a decline in this vital metric”,

in reference to the increase in pollution incidents.

Members have reflected what Surfers Against Sewage has said, and the Rivers Trust has slammed the Government’s performance, yet the Minister—[Interruption.] She marches back into the Chamber just as I was saying that if she had been here, she would have heard about a very different reality in respect of our water industry from the one that she appeared to inhabit. She described the “wonderful water” that we deserve and are all experiencing. She seemed to believe that she and this Government had brought forward strong measures that Labour and the Liberal Democrats had stood against. She said that if we introduced automatic fines, it would somehow be good for the water companies because it would prevent other kinds of action from being taken.

I am afraid it was really quite bizarre to listen to that depiction of what has happened, but there were many other, very relevant, contributions to the debate. They started with the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger), who cut through the word that might be used to describe some of what we heard and what is also in our rivers. He clearly admitted that in the 23 years he has been a Member of Parliament, the situation has got worse. He did not buy the idea that we are living in some golden age of river hygiene.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) spoke about the broken Government promises on environmental standards; the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) spoke of his frustration at the Government’s failure on this issue; and my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) gave us a passionate and evocative description of the beautiful coastline in his area, and accused the Minister of—just like, unfortunately, the surfers in the constituency of the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) —going through the motions.

[Steve Double]

rose—

[Mr Perkins]

I will come to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.

The hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) made an interesting contribution. He slated the record of the Liberal Democrat Minister between 2013 and 2015, apparently forgetting that that Minister served under a Conservative Secretary of State, in a Conservative-led Government who were implementing policies as a result of the Conservative austerity programme. I stand behind no one when it comes to condemning Liberal Democrats for their record between 2010 and 2015, but even I thought that was a bit rich.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) spoke about the performance and failure of Thames Water. He said that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane had given an extraordinarily complacent speech. I think he spoke for many when he said that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) spoke about 2 billion litres of sewage outflow in two days in her area in 2020; my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) spoke about the appalling levels of pollution in his constituency; and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) spoke of the duplicity of water companies on self-monitoring. It is important to say that although some Members gave credit for the increased amount of monitoring, the “Panorama” programme has called into doubt whether we can believe any of the figures we see.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) rightly referred to the other causes of river pollution—another important factor, which was not covered as much in this debate. She also spoke about the lack of capacity in the slimmed-down Environment Agency to take on those alternative causes of river pollution. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), in a very good speech, mentioned the Environment Agency saying in 2010 that we had the healthiest rivers since the industrial revolution, and its frustration that we are seeing that progress stall under this Government.

[Steve Double]

I take note of what the shadow Minister says. He mentions both Surfers Against Sewage and surfers in my constituency. Will he acknowledge that when Surfers Against Sewage began its campaign in 1990, less than 25% of the beaches in the UK met the acceptable minimum standard for bathing water quality, and today that figure is over 90%?

[Mr Perkins]

The first thing to say is that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the state of the beaches back in 1990 was even more disgraceful than it is today. The vast majority of the progress was made between 1997 and 2010, almost—[Interruption.] Yes, it was. It was almost up to 80% by then. If we read its reports, the Environment Agency expresses its frustration that the significant progress made in that period has slowed since then.

[Steve Double]

Can the shadow Minister explain to me why it was that the Labour Government were taken to court by the European Union in 2009 for failing to address the issue?

[Mr Perkins]

The hon. Gentleman should listen to what the Environment Agency has said. It has said the improvements in water quality have slowed under this Government and it has expressed its frustration that we are plateauing.

The hon. Gentleman said in his comments that Ofwat already has the power to ban bonuses. If he had listened to the Minister, he would have known that that is not true. What Ofwat has at the moment is the power to ensure that those bonuses are not paid from the money paid by bill payers. That is not the same as what we propose. Our proposal is very different, so he was incorrect to say that the powers we are proposing are those that currently exist.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) summed up the difference between the behaviour of bosses and the experience of his constituents. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) made clear earlier, the Government have been complicit in this disgraceful practice, through the funding cuts that my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Simon Lightwood) referred to. They have cut the Environment Agency’s funding in half, leading to the dramatic reduction in monitoring, enforcement and prosecutions that in turn has led to the dramatic increase in illegal sewage discharges.

Now, to make matters worse, the Government are simply ignoring the BBC’s investigation. It was shocking that the Environment Agency did not provide anyone for that programme; it is a Government regulator and should be answering for the performance of the water companies. While Tory Ministers claim that they have a grip on this issue, even the Environment Agency has been forced to admit that the water companies’ performance in the most recent year was “completely unacceptable”.

Britain cannot afford years more of the decline in its natural habitat and of worsening water quality, but these years of failure may finally be at an end. Soon, people across Britain will have an opportunity to bring down the curtain on what by then will be 14 years of failure, and to elect a Labour Government to address this shocking situation. The Labour party’s DEFRA team have already met with water company bosses and, while the meetings were cordial, the message was unmistakable: the days of a Government turning a blind eye to the failure and corruption of self-regulation will be at an end under Labour.

That starts with punishing the worst actors. We will give the water regulator the power to ban bonuses for water bosses until they have cleaned up their filth, but that is only the first step to clean up the water industry. Labour will go further, putting the industry under special measures. We will end the pointless practice of self-monitoring, and will require water companies to install remote monitors on every outlet overseen by the regulators and the Government. Any illegal spill will be met with an immediate and severe fine—no more delays, no more appeals, no more lenient fines that are cheaper than paying to upgrade crumbling infrastructure. Rogue water bosses who overseer repeated severe and illegal sewage discharges will face personal criminal liability.

The days of failure under this Government are now coming to an end. A Labour Government will get our water cleaned up and resolved.

Draft Plant Health etc. (Miscellaneous Fees) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2023

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2023 General Committees

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

We do not intend to divide the Committee, but I have a few questions for the Minister that hon. Members might be interested in—and it gives his civil servants a bit of work to do!

What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of not lifting the exemption now, and is it the Government’s view that the charges are a good idea but that now is not the right time to apply them? If so, why will June 2025 be a good time to do so? What assessment has he made of the impact on Britain’s competitiveness of applying the charges, and the impact on small and large-scale exporters, and on small and large businesses in the UK market?

Is this another example of the Government effectively pushing a decision down the road to face a new Government, because they are not capable of taking the decision now? Why, in 2018, was 2023 was the right time to get rid of these charges, but the Government are now saying that that time should be 2025? Is the reason for the extension because the Government believe that there will be a competitive disadvantage to UK exporters or internal UK suppliers from applying the fees, or do the Government not yet have the administrative regime in place to apply them?

What assessment has the Minister made of the cost to the UK taxpayer of not applying the charges? How much do the Government estimate the charges would have raised had the exemption not been in place, and how much would it cost the Government to apply them? And, in the event that the UK populace is misguided enough to choose to elect a Conservative Government again after the next general election, is it the Government’s policy to introduce these charges in June 2025, or does the Minister anticipate that we will return once again to extend the exemption in the run-up to June 2025?

I would be interested to hear the Minister’s answers to those questions. It is important that the industry can have long-term sight of the Government’s policies. Is this another temporary exemption, leading ultimately to the charges being applied, or is it a case that we will constantly give the industry exemptions from the charges of about 18 months at a time, which is a pretty unsatisfactory way to provide Government policy?

Storm Babet: Flooding

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 23rd October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for all she did this weekend. She was straight on the phone, rightly representing her constituents. I believe that the waters are now receding in Erewash. I give my sympathies to those who have been flooded. A lot of the flooding is surface water flooding, so our new scheme to improve forecasting of surface water flooding will be a real help to constituencies such as hers. DLUHC Ministers are working on what might be in place to help with the clear-up, and I will speak to them later, as will our Department.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Flood Babet hit Chesterfield very hard on Friday, with the River Rother and the River Hipper bursting their banks. Tragically, 83-year-old Maureen Gilbert of Tapton Terrace lost her life in her own home. Her death has hit both her family and her neighbours very hard. On behalf of the whole House, I send our condolences to the family.

As many as 400 homes across Brampton, Birdholme, Riverside and Tapton Terrace have been flooded, and countless businesses now face a fight for their survival. It is particularly hard to bear as the vast majority of those properties are the same ones that flooded into 2007, despite the Government implementing schemes to protect the River Rother. Why did residents on Tapton Terrace receive the phone call from the early warning system after their houses had been flooded? What assessment has the Minister made of the success of the early warning system?

The financial cost facing flood victims and the council are huge. Can the Minister explain when the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will confirm that residents qualify for financial support from the flood recovery framework, and that the council will be covered for the huge additional cost via the Bellwin scheme? How quickly will the Government be in a position to announce that?

[Rebecca Pow]

I reiterate our condolences to the family of Maureen. Nothing could be more tragic, so huge sympathies go out to the family. I was in touch with the hon. Gentleman over the weekend about the situation in Tapton Terrace. I fed that straight into the Environment Agency, which is working very closely with people up there to fully review what happened. That will be part of the review that we instigate. On the costs of clear-up, the Bellwin scheme is triggered by DLUHC, the recovery Department. As I said, we will be meeting to discuss whether that is appropriate, when it would be appropriate and who might apply for it.

Breed-specific Legislation

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 6th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) on introducing the debate, and on the way in which she opened it. People from right across the country feel strongly about the issue, and I am sure that many will have appreciated what she said. I am pleased to speak today on behalf of the dozens of constituents who have contacted me on this issue. In fact, at the latest count, 286 people from Chesterfield had signed the petition. There is no doubting that there is very strong opinion on the subject. As is often said, we are a nation of animal lovers. I receive more emails and letters regarding animal welfare than on almost any other issue. My inbox is full of messages from people who are concerned about badgers, bats, birds, butterflies, improving welfare standards in food production, and protecting animals across the world from poaching or the destruction of their habitat.

Even stronger than our passion for wild animals is our love for our pets. Our pets, particularly our dogs and cats, are very much part of the family. We love them and we protect them like a family member. That is why people feel so passionately about how unfair and ineffective the legislation is, and why over 115,000 people signed the e-petition that generated today’s debate.

I have the great privilege and honour of sharing our house with the family cat, Basil—a tiny bundle of energy who many colleagues of mine may have seen appearing on Zoom calls over the last couple of years—and also the family dog, Laurie, who is very old and increasingly smelly, but very much adored by the family none the less. We would all be devastated if anything happened to them, which is of course how people across the country feel, but it is a particular agony if our animals are attacked. The consequences can be very serious for the whole family when dogs get out of control and attack other dogs, and obviously when, tragically, children and others are attacked. Dangerous dogs are a menace that absolutely must be clamped down upon. Today’s debate is not about whether action needs to be taken against dangerous dogs, but about whether we are currently taking the right action.

[Wayne David]

In the five months to February, there were 69 dog attacks in the Gwent police area, which is relatively small, and that figure can be extrapolated right across the country. Nothing highlights more how ineffective the current legislation is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Perkins]

I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. We have heard from other hon. Members about the importance of recognising the need for legislation that targets dangerous dogs and dangerous dog owners. When 92% of all attacks are by dogs not covered by the legislation, it is clearly ineffective, as his experience in Gwent demonstrates.

We all have pets that we love, or pets that have died who we still miss. I am sure everybody understands the distress and extreme upset it causes dog owners who have their pets—animals that may be well trained and have never harmed anyone—confiscated and euthanised simply because of their breed or type. I recently met my constituent Annie Littlewood to discuss her dog Frank, who sadly died recently. Annie always suspected that Frank might be of a pit bull-type breed and lived in fear that he would be confiscated and put down. Frank was quite a local celebrity in the Brookside area of Chesterfield. He was a gentle soul who was loved by everyone who met him. When he was out on walks, people from across the community went up to speak to him and give him a stroke. He was always well behaved and never harmed a person or any other animal, but under the current legislation he could have been deemed dangerous and euthanised.

That is clearly why so many have signed this petition. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 has often been held up as an example of poor-quality legislation that was created in haste, without proper scrutiny or consultation. While no one wants anyone to be the victim of a dog attack, we need to ensure that laws to address that are effective and to be certain about what they are achieving. As the current legislation is not reducing dog attacks or improving public safety, it is clearly not fit for purpose. I therefore hope that when the Minister responds she will show a little more open-mindedness about addressing this law and recognise that a wide variety of organisations with real passion in this area believe that it is failing to improve public safety.

The RSPCA, the British Veterinary Association, the Kennel Club and many other animal welfare groups all seem to agree that a review is urgently needed and that the current law is not working, so I hope the Government will listen to these groups. Evidence from the RSPCA suggests that the four breeds selected by the legislation 30 years ago are no more prone to aggression, and do not pose a more significant risk, than many other types of dogs.

The hon. Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) spoke about the importance of ensuring that dog owners take responsibility for dog-on-dog attacks, and she made an important point about aspects of the legislation that need to be reviewed. I know that is felt particularly passionately by the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, because guide dogs are bred and trained to be gentle, for obvious reasons. It is incredibly important. When they come under attack, they are ill equipped to defend themselves. It massively impacts on their ability to do their job—they are working dogs—and it is terrifying for the blind person accompanying them to experience those kinds of attacks, so dog-on-dog attacks should be capable of being prosecuted in the way that the hon. Lady spoke about.

When it comes to the creation or amendment of laws, it is vital that we look at the evidence and listen to the experts, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) said. I know that listening to experts is not always something that the Government have chosen to do, but it is our responsibility as legislators and representatives to make sure that laws are evidence-based. The Government should see this as an opportunity to improve public safety by creating a system that focuses on the aggressive behaviour of dogs, and on owners who either fail to control their dogs or deliberately try to make them more aggressive, rather than on the very blunt instrument of breed, which is how the legislation is currently formulated.

Responsible dog owners such as my constituent Annie, who have made sure that their dogs are well trained, balanced and passive, should not have to live in fear that their much-loved family pet could be destroyed because an inspector with a tape measure has determined that it is an illegal type. Let us listen to our constituents and the experts, and let us work together to create an ethical system that genuinely improves public safety and does not needlessly destroy safe, well-behaved pets.

Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

Retained EU law means that the existing basic payment scheme will continue. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Agriculture Bill, which has been before the House, outlines a plan to evolve that policy over a period of seven years, but that is not the issue before us today. This particular instrument relates to the CMO regulations.

In March this year, six EU exit operability SIs concerning the CMO were debated in the House, approved and made. Those SIs sought to make retained EU law operable in the domestic UK context. The instrument under debate amends one of those existing EU exit SIs: the Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products and Common Agricultural Policy (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. The existing SI, which was passed in March, ensured the operability of certain provisions relating to the reserved policy areas of regulation of anti-competitive practices, international trade, imports and exports and intellectual property law. Among other things, it establishes transitional periods for the import documentation for hops, certificates of conformity for fruit and vegetables and imports of veal.

The original statutory instrument obviously envisaged a departure date of the end of March, but, as Members are fully aware, a decision was taken to delay our departure to 31 October. The primary aim of this statutory instrument is to make simple corrections to the existing EU exit SI, to ensure that, where provisions refer to a transitional period, those periods are realised as was intended.

Current EU legislation requires hops imported from third countries to be accompanied by an attestation certifying compliance with EU marketing standards. For fruit and vegetables, EU legislation permits the inspection authorities of specified third countries to certify that imports originating from that country comply with EU marketing standards, so that they may benefit from lower inspection burdens in the EU. That legislation will be rolled over into UK law, and we are providing for a transitional period of two years for forms and certificates that we accept from third countries attesting that a product meets marketing standard requirements, during which both the new UK forms and certificates and their equivalent EU versions shall be accepted, provided that the EU standards remain at least as high as the UK standards. That will allow importers time to transition to using the new forms of documentation.

This instrument also concerns imports of veal. Under EU law, third countries wishing to import bovine meat into the EU must maintain an identification and registration system of the bovine animals they intend to import, starting from the day of birth of the animals. This is to ensure that imported meat has traceable origins and meets the EU’s standards and that the age of animals whose meat is marketed as veal can be verified. The name and address of the body in charge of the system, with a list of operators for whom the body is carrying out checks, must be notified to the Commission before the first consignment of veal is imported.

These rules are being retained in our own EU exit SIs, with a requirement for third countries—including EU member states, which will become third countries when we exit—to notify this information to the Secretary of State. To safeguard the continuity of veal imports from the EU into the UK after EU exit, we have allowed a three-month transitional period, to allow the EU time to gather and submit the required information to the UK. The end dates for these transitional periods were explicitly stated as 29 March 2021 for hops and fruit and vegetables and 30 June 2019 for veal.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

It is important that the standards are maintained as we head towards 31 October, and many of my constituents will be concerned about not only the maintenance of those standards but also pricing. Can the Minister clarify the Government’s policy on what tariffs the UK would place on EU agricultural goods coming into the UK if, in the event of no deal, the EU placed tariffs on UK agricultural goods?

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman raises a point that is somewhat outside the scope of these regulations—