Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,804 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I agree with both my colleagues, and that is why we have tabled amendments and new clauses to address this issue. I will come on to those in a moment. It was a Labour Government that chose to cancel the removals deterrent before it started, and that is why the numbers are higher than they have ever been in history. It is a result of their choices.
As I said already, the plan was never started. The first plane was due to take off on 24 July, but the Labour Government cancelled it within days of coming to office. The money would have been extremely well spent had the scheme started, because the deterrent effect would have stopped the boats, meaning that we would not have tens of thousands of people in hotels costing billions and billions. While we are on the topic of hotels, let us look at how the Labour Government’s pledge during the election to end the use of asylum hotels is going. The numbers in asylum hotels have gone up by 8,000 so far under this Labour Government. Speaking of removals deterrents, I was in Berlin four or five weeks ago talking to members of the CDU party, which is now in Government. The incoming German Government intend to implement a removals deterrent very similar in concept to the Rwanda scheme. So other Governments around the world have realised that they have to do this; it worked in Australia, and the new German Government will be doing something very similar. It is just our Government who are going headlong in the opposite direction.
I will make some progress. Turning to the amendments on indefinite leave to remain, new clause 11 would limit eligibility for ILR to 10 years, and new clause 17 would set various conditions on ILR. New clause 17 essentially says that to get ILR after 10 years a person has to have made an economic contribution, and cannot be a burden on other taxpayers. Those strike me as very fair measures. I notice that in the immigration announcement by the Prime Minister this morning, he made reference to 10 years for ILR, despite the fact that the Minister and her colleagues voted against that measure just a few weeks ago. I wonder what has magically changed their minds. If they are serious about such a measure, will they support new clause 11, which would implement what the Prime Minister announced this morning, and vote for it later today? If I understand the Prime Minister’s announcement correctly, he said that when someone reaches 10 years of residence, they automatically qualify for indefinite leave to remain under the Government’s proposals. What we propose in new clause 17 is that there should be conditionality, even after 10 years. The person should be making some kind of contribution to the country in order to qualify for indefinite leave to remain. Will the Minister take the opportunity to agree with that approach and therefore support new clause 17? I will turn now to the two new clauses that we intend to push to a vote this evening. First, new clause 18 would establish a binding cap on immigration numbers each year, to be voted on in Parliament. It would be democratically accountable and completely transparent. It will be up to Parliament to debate what the number should be, but I would argue that it should be a lot lower than any recent number we have seen, and indeed a lot lower than the recent forecasts from the Office for National Statistics and the Office for Budget Responsibility.
Let me finish my point. The critical point is that whatever one’s views on the number, it would be Parliament that voted to cap migration every year. Never again would we see immigration rise to levels far higher than anyone intended. We would never again see unintended consequences, where visa rules are set up but numbers end up being much higher. A good example of that is the health and social care visa, which was initially supposed to be for only a few thousand people but ended up being for hundreds of thousands. With a cap mechanism in place, that would never happen again. I invite the Minister to tell me, when she responds, whether she would support a binding annual cap, decided by this Parliament. Will she support democratic accountability for that number, and if not, why on earth not? I can see no reason at all why this elected Parliament should not set the limit each year and why we should instead end up with numbers that many of us would think are far too high.
How about the hon. Gentleman votes for the cap this evening, and then we can debate what level it should be set at? We are not going to debate the level of a cap that currently does not even exist. His own Front Benchers are trying to deny him and every Member of this House a voice on this issue. If Labour Members believe in Parliament deciding these issues and in democratic accountability, they will vote for new clause 18 and let Parliament decide what the cap should be.
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and it is germane to the earlier discussion about people crossing the channel illegally. So long as we have 11,000 or 12,000 people crossing the channel a year—as I said, this is the worst year ever—it is very difficult to create safe and legal routes, because our capacity is completely taken up by people entering the country illegally. If we can stop illegal migration by using the measures I suggested, and a removals deterrent in particular, that will create capacity for a limited safe and legal route for people who we—the Government and Parliament—judge to be deserving. We did that for the Syria crisis, where the UK resettlement scheme went to refugee camps on the Syrian borders, identified the most vulnerable refugees—often women and children—and brought them to the UK, instead of having people crossing the channel illegally and pushing their way to the front of the queue. That is exactly what a new, tougher approach on illegal immigration would facilitate.
I am going to make a bit of progress. The second amendment that we intend to put to a vote, new clause 14, concerns the Human Rights Act. The Government, through the Home Secretary in her statement and the Minister in her remarks a few moments ago, talked about tinkering with article 8, but the truth is that that will not make any meaningful difference. It is worth reminding ourselves of the history of this. The European convention on human rights is an international treaty that we entered into—indeed, we helped to draft it—in 1950. In 1998 the Blair Government passed the Human Rights Act, which essentially incorporated the ECHR into domestic law. So UK courts, when making any immigration decisions, or indeed any other decisions, can use their interpretation of the ECHR when interpreting legislation passed by this House and to prevent the Government from taking a particular executive action that might include removing or deporting someone. The Act empowered UK judges to use the ECHR however they saw fit. The problem with the ECHR is that it is not like a piece of domestic legislation such as the Bill we are considering, which is detailed and has everything precisely defined. The ECHR is vaguely worded. For example, article 3 is on freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment and article 8 is on the right to a private and family life. There is nothing objectionable about those articles in themselves; the problem is that, over the years, judges have expanded their interpretation of them in ever more extraordinary ways, which defy common sense. Let me just give the House a couple of examples of such judgments. A paedophile of Zimbabwean nationality quite rightly fell for deportation under section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007. He should have been deported, but a UK judge—not a Strasbourg judge—said “No, no.” They said that, under their interpretation of the ECHR, that convicted paedophile might face “some hostility” if they were returned to Zimbabwe in a manner that breached their article 3 rights—not their article 8 rights—so they said that that convicted paedophile could stay here in the UK. What about the human rights of British children to be protected from paedophiles like that? What about the rights of British citizens to be protected from foreign offenders? In another case, an Iraqi drug dealer rightly fell for deportation back to Iraq, but a judge found that he had become too westernised and therefore could not be returned to Iraq, his country of nationality and country of origin. Those are just two examples of thousands where domestic UK judges have stretched the definition of ECHR articles in a way that defies all common sense, and certainly goes far beyond anything the original framers of the ECHR had in mind when they signed up to it in 1950. That is why, as a first step, we propose to repeal the Human Rights Act in relation to all immigration matters so that domestic UK judges would no longer be able to apply their own creative and expansive interpretations of the ECHR when making immigration decisions; instead, they would have regard solely and exclusively to domestic legislation that we have passed in this House. That strikes me as a common-sense measure that would end the handing down of ridiculous judgments and enable the Government to ensure that people with no right to be here and dangerous foreign criminals could be removed. At the moment, judges are preventing that, using interpretations that completely defy common sense.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will follow your injunction to wind up. Of course, we need to pay attention to the rights and protection of children, but having people smuggled across the English channel on boats does not in any way help with that. If the Government are serious about getting back control of the immigration system and stopping illegal immigration, they will support our measures that would put a cap on migration and repeal the Human Rights Act in relation to immigration matters.
The Minister mentioned the provision to prevent certain sex offenders from claiming asylum. While that is a welcome step, what will happen in practice is that the sex offender will simply make a claim under article 3 of the ECHR instead. I have seen dozens and dozens of cases like that, and that is precisely why we need to disapply the Human Rights Act 1998 from all immigration matters. Otherwise, there will just be a huge loophole, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) pointed out.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this unexpected opportunity. The reason the Opposition will vote against the Bill is that it does nothing to restore control of our country’s borders. It repeals the legislative basis for a removals deterrent, which is needed to stop people crossing the English channel. The fact that the Labour Government cancelled that deterrent before it started is why illegal crossings have gone up by 29% since the last election, and why this year has been the worst in history for illegal crossings of the English channel. This Bill weakens border controls, and it removes the powers that the Government could otherwise exercise to control our borders. They are failing, and this Bill will do nothing to restore control of our borders. Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Order. The hon. Member means “the hon. Member for Strangford”.
Order. We do need to have a question.
Order. Can the hon. Lady get to the question, please?
With what I am sure will be a pithy final question, I call Jim Shannon.
I thank the Secretary of State for his very detailed answers this afternoon.
Before I call the Home Secretary to make her statement, Mr Speaker has noted that details of the White Paper have been reported in the media since Sunday morning. As Mr Speaker has said previously, it is important that these policy announcements are made in the first instance in this House, and not in the media. Mr Speaker does not understand why the Government persist in making announcements in this way, when the ministerial code is absolutely clear: “When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament.” It is clear to Mr Speaker that, for whatever reason, that principle is no longer routinely observed by the Government, and he will be giving further consideration to what might be possible in order to regularise the situation.
I call the shadow Home Secretary.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
If I am to get in as many Members as possible, we will need pithy questions and short answers, please. For a masterclass in that, I call the Chair of the Education Committee.
Order. Please can we get to the question?
Order. I intend to allow this statement to continue until 6.15 pm. I appreciate that many Members might be disappointed.
So many disabled members of society are unable to demonstrate the minimum academic requirements to get on to many courses, or to secure employment. What steps are the Government taking to support those people, so that they can demonstrate vocational and non-academic competencies, and get the jobs that they deserve?
9. What steps she plans to take to encourage young people to increase their private pension pots.
I thank the Minister for that response. Thanks to the introduction of auto-enrolment, millions of young people are now saving for their retirement, but I have heard worrying reports in Mid Bedfordshire that increases in employers’ national insurance, which have resulted in pay freezes, are now causing people to decide to opt out of pension savings. Does the Minister recognise that risk to pensions adequacy? If so, what is he doing to address it?
How does the immigration White Paper address the significant number of pull factors currently advertised online? The Government’s own website www.gov.uk/asylum-support/what-youll-get is there for any aspirational English-speaking asylum seeker to see just why it is worth running the risk of crossing the channel. It states: “You’ll be given somewhere to live if you need it. This could be in a flat, house, hostel or bed and breakfast… You’ll usually get £49.18 for each person in your household. This will help you pay for things you need like food, clothing and toiletries… Your allowance will be loaded onto a debit card…each week.”
What are the Government doing to address the online advertising of this incredibly generous package?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 10 February 2025, the Minister for Border Security and Asylum inadvertently misled the House. She stated: “The latest figures show that 18,987 people with no right to be here have been deported since we came into government.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 131.] The Home Office clearly defines deportations as “a specific subset of returns which are enforced either following a criminal conviction or when it is judged that a person’s removal from the UK is conducive to the public good.” The latest figures available state that in the year ending 2024, there were just 4,428 enforced returns since Labour came into government. The rest were, in fact, voluntary returns, nearly 50% of which are classified as other verified returns in which the Government played no active role. Will you please ask the Minister to correct the record in accordance with 1.6.c. of the “Ministerial Code” during her next appearance at the Dispatch Box?
As we mark the 80th anniversary of victory in Europe, I remember the great role that my constituency played, including 617 Squadron, flying from RAF Woodhall Spa; we must also remember and thank those women and men who formed the Land Army in order to feed our troops and our nation. Many of their descendants still farm the same fields that their ancestors farmed in the war, but that tradition is under threat from this Government. Before Christmas, I warned the Secretary of State that a farmer had taken their life because they were so worried about the family farm tax. The Secretary of State responded with anger, and later stopped the farming resilience fund, which helped farmers with mental ill health. This week, I have received the devastating news that several more farmers have taken their life because of the family farm tax. That is the Secretary of State’s legacy, but he can change it, because this change is not yet law. Will he set out these tragedies to the Prime Minister and demand that Labour policy be changed, or offer, on a point of principle, his resignation?
I am sorry, Mr Speaker, but I am simply confronting the Secretary of State with the realities of his policy. Another policy is distressing farmers and other people: the removal of our ancient property rights, first enshrined in the Magna Carta. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill gives a quango, Natural England, powers to seize private land, not for house building but for undefined environmental reasons. It can seize not just agricultural land, but our constituents’ gardens, and it does not even have to pay market value for that land. Will the Secretary of State now commit to an amendment to the Bill to save our constituents’ gardens, or is this Labour’s garden grab?
I refer colleagues to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Mediation and alternative dispute resolution are critical in reducing backlogs in the courts. I urge Ministers, in addition to holding the review, to look very carefully at the opportunities to use mediation more, particularly mandatory mediation.
I welcome this deal. The politics and detail aside, it is worth acknowledging that the Prime Minister’s strategy towards the US—low-key diplomacy, mediation-led over the past few months—has led the United Kingdom to the front of the queue. In addition to Peter Mandelson, I would thank Varun Chandra, civil servants and others for getting us to this position. What practical support can the Minister provide in assistance for business and farmers in North Yorkshire to take advantage of this deal?
10. What steps his Department is taking to help prevent the spread of avian influenza.
Does the Minister agree that avian influenza remains an existential threat to the poultry industry, and—now that the French have decided to vaccinate their ducks—will he agree to the National Farmers Union request that we introduce the vaccination of seasonal turkeys in order to protect the entire industry?
6. What recent progress he has made on the Surrey hills national landscape—area of outstanding natural beauty—boundary variation project.
On VE Day, I remember the role of Dunsfold aerodrome in my constituency, which played a vital role in the battle of Britain. I thank the Minister for her response. She knows that the proposed expansion of the Surrey hills national landscape will have a huge impact by improving biodiversity and natural protection in villages such as Dunsfold, Tongham, Bramley, Wonersh and Shamley Green in my constituency. Before she makes the final decision on whether to go ahead, will she spare the time to meet me so I can explain to her just how important the expansion is to my constituents?
It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), who is fast establishing a reputation as an effective parliamentarian and a thoroughly nice chap. His speech was appropriate and excellent in every single way, and I agreed with everything he said. It is not often that Labour MPs quote former Tory Prime Ministers—that was certainly a first, and we all much enjoyed it. Of course, as we all do, the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the famous people from his constituency. Well, I can match that for Lincolnshire. I can talk of Sir Isaac Newton, John Smith of the pilgrim fathers, the great poet Alfred, Lord Tennyson, and Joan Plowright. I can also mention one other person who came from Lincolnshire. I do not want to break the cosy consensus of this debate, but it is a lady whom I greatly admire. I believe that she restored greatness to this country when she was Prime Minister—I need not even mention her name because she is so famous. St George is a saint. He was not English, of course. When the far right try to capture the flag of St George, they should perhaps try to remember that he was an Anatolian Greek. I think it is quite good that our national saint is not actually English, and that we know virtually nothing about him. What we do know is based purely on legend and is almost certainly wrong. I think that says much about the easy-going nature of the English people. We are surrounded by saints here. In the Undercroft, we have St Etheldreda, St Edward the Confessor, St Margaret of Scotland, St Edmund and many more. In Central Lobby, we have the four great patron saints of our countries. There is a well-worn joke about St Andrew being on the way to the bar, St Patrick on the way to the exit, St David on the way to this Chamber, where we all like to talk, and St George on the way to the Lords. Saints unite; politicians divide. I have many times expressed in this Chamber—it is rather an unfashionable point of view, but I will mention it briefly—the importance of religion in binding people together. Religion, on an ecumenical basis—being proud of one’s religion and its social ethos—should be a unifying factor. All the great religions have much the same moral creed, and I think the decline of religion in England has been rather sad. The theme I want to talk about, so that I do not indulge entirely in clichés, is the essence of a nation being a sense of community—a community in which everybody is in a project together, all doing their bit. Sadly, there has been a decline in that sense of community in our nation. For instance, my parents, although English, were brought up in France. They came here as refugees in 1940 when the Germans invaded France because they had British passports, and they met in Bletchley Park. They had a very mixed upbringing, but they had a complete dedication to this country. When my mother was very old, she would still insist, despite being very infirm, on tottering off to the polling booth. The wartime generation, who we are celebrating today, had an absolute sense of duty and community, and we want to recreate that. Let me make one or two points that may be more controversial. There are some factors that are breaking our sense of community, and, frankly, we all saw from the results last week that they are fuelling a feeling of disillusion. One, of course, is illegal migration. We have got to understand that this infuriates everybody. It does not just infuriate right-wing people who do not like the idea of migrants. It also infuriates many people who are working hard and feel that some are taking advantage. I do not want to make any criticism of migrants, and I do not want to attack them personally. Take a Somali migrant—why is he trying to come here? Because for hundreds of years, his family could fish off the coast of Somalia, and then we in the west sent in huge trawlers to take all the fish away and took away his livelihood, so he resorted to piracy. Quite rightly, we then sent in warships to deal with that, so once again, they were starving, and he is now on the way here. I do not think we should approach the issue of migration in a nationalistic way. What I liked about the speech made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme was that it was patriotic, not nationalistic, and it tried to heal divisions. The fact is that illegal migration is an open wound in our society. It is not just the cost of it, with £4 million a day spent on hotels; there is also a sense for many in our country that people who could apply for asylum in the proper, normal way are bypassing that route. We have seen from a study in The Daily Telegraph this week how easy it is to pay a people smuggler, come over here, be put in a hotel and act as a courier. That is really infuriating people. Our fate in the Conservative party, because we are no longer in power, is that we are dependent on the Labour Government solving this problem—and they will have to solve it, because we cannot go on as we are. It is fuelling a great sense of anger in the nation. The Government have to get a derogation from the Strasbourg Court, as I have argued many times, in order to arrest, detain and deport people, and then this horrible trade will stop immediately. Of course, there is a humanitarian point to be made here: these people smugglers are putting lives at risk, and people are dying. They are feeding on human misery. We cannot do much about it in the Conservative party; Labour is now in power. My advice to the Government is that if they want to resist this sense of disillusion in society, with people turning away from both the Labour party and the Conservative party, they have to do something about it. They have to do something about legal migration, too. There is a great sense among people who are working hard here that people are pouring in or have poured in. I blame my Government as much as any other; I do not make a party political point here. The Labour party has taken over a difficult issue. We all know the reasons to do with the pandemic and all the other excuses, and about how we had to keep the NHS and our care homes going, but the fact that the Conservative Government allowed 1 million people in legally last year is infuriating people, and it is depressing wages. It might be good for overall GDP, but it is certainly bad for individual wealth. Again, we can do very little about it in the Conservative party, but the Government need to act. I know they are trying to take steps. This is relevant to the debate about St George because it is about trying to recreate a sense that we are one nation, and that everybody works hard, everybody pays their taxes, and we get benefits such as free education and free health so that when we fall ill we are helped by the state. I was talking to a constituent only today and she is clearly a lady in some distress. She cannot move but has just had her personal independence payment cancelled. She has been told she has to work from home, but she cannot work from home because she does not have those sorts of skills. Ever more people are feeling angry that they have done their bit and worked hard, but when they fall ill or need benefits they are not being helped. We have to all work together to try to again get that sense of the wartime spirit—that is a bit of a cliché, but it is about a time when everybody mucked in, everybody had a job, everybody did their bit and there were, frankly, very few freeloaders. I represent an agricultural constituency. One might wonder why I am now getting on to that subject, but again there is a sense among people in agricultural constituencies that the Government do not understand their point of view. We are all in favour of green energy in Lincolnshire. We are leading on green energy with wind farms in the North sea; there is no opposition to them, but we are angry that entrepreneurs are importing solar panels from China made by slave labour and covering 10,000 acres in my constituency with no proper local planning. We are not against solar farms and we are not against the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero; we just want a sense of fairness that local communities have a say in this and there is some sense of proportion. I think I have said my bit. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and hope we have a very good and worthwhile debate.
Please spare us another Parliament.
In the Trumpian philosophy that is “The Art of the Deal”, you bully your opponents and then, two months later, withdraw some of the threats, and they kneel down in adoration while they are reduced to where they were before. That is where we are. We are celebrating the end of the second world war. Before the second world war, people could walk from Lincoln to Grimsby across derelict farms. I want a real assurance from the Minister that he will protect our beef farmers, because this is the start of an attack by America on our beef farmers.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for securing this incredibly important debate. As has been indicated in all the contributions, we realise that small abattoirs are a vital part of our food supply chain and, therefore, of our national food security. The benefits of encouraging a diverse range of abattoirs of all sizes are incredibly important not only for food supply but for supporting the rural economy. Farming businesses rely on them. If they are not there, opportunities for our farmers, our rural economy and our consumers are significantly reduced. Small abattoirs bring greater market competition, helping our farmers to secure the best price for their produce. They often provide specialist services, such as slaughter for horned cattle or outdoor pigs, which is not always offered by larger establishments, as we have heard. We do not always hear in this House about how the opportunities provided by small abattoirs are incredibly important for many in our farming community. Private kill services, which farmers looking to diversify increasingly rely on, are also a speciality of our smaller abattoirs. With regard to animal welfare, smaller abattoirs are well suited to ensuring that each animal receives humane treatment. Reduced travel distances mean that animals arrive less stressed than they would after a longer journey. Those shorter travel distances also cut down on haulage costs and emissions in our meat sector, as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) indicated in his intervention. In rural communities across the country, small abattoirs ensure that more business is done locally by providing jobs and a local supply of produce for businesses further down the supply chain. However, we have unfortunately seen a decline in small and medium-sized abattoirs across the country, with areas such as northern Scotland, northern England and the south-east in particular experiencing a short supply of small abattoirs. A survey of farm businesses recently showed that 51% of respondents had to find new abattoirs after the closure of their original provider. Between 2018 and 2022, smaller red meat abattoirs declined by around 25% and smaller poultry abattoirs declined by around 40%. A survey undertaken by National Craft Butchers indicated that 59% of abattoirs processing less than 1,000 livestock units a year would close within two to five years without any Government intervention. In 2023, that analysis was unfortunately on track. The previous Government decided to act on that by introducing the smaller abattoir fund. However, the costs to our smaller abattoirs have significantly increased. As has been mentioned, energy costs are often much higher for smaller abattoirs. The employer national insurance increase, the minimum wage increase and the challenges around skills are increasing those challenges. The previous Government understood the problem and delivered the £4 million smaller abattoir fund, with 42% of eligible businesses applying. It delivered critical investment into the sector, making it more productive and improving produce quality and animal welfare standards. I urge the Government to continue rolling out that fund, which provided funds from £4,000 to up to £60,000. That was increased from an intervention rate of 40% to 50%, with the upper limit increasing to £75,000 to cover off some of the challenges. Specific issues were picked up by colleagues in their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) mentioned the challenges in the south-east. I know that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) had specific challenges associated with their abattoir in Henfield. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs met the chief executive of Horsham district council and managed to secure a £300,000 grant to help keep the abattoir open. That illustrates the nature of the challenge. The changes to employer’s national insurance have been exacerbated by the additional costs associated with energy and running a small abattoir, so sometimes the Government need to intervene and assist. We also need to get to a position of fairness throughout the whole of the supply chain, as was rightly suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam). Farmers want fairness, not favours. We must get to a position where there is fairness in the supply chain. Government intervention sometimes helps the small abattoirs that provide a much better level of service to our rural economy, rather than farmers having to rely on larger abattoirs. Sometimes intervention helps, so I reiterate the calls on the Government to roll out the smaller abattoir fund again. We also delivered the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024, which banned the export of live animals for slaughter. Not only did that end an often inhumane practice, but it provided further reassurance for the sector. The first thing that the Government could do is unequivocally recognise the importance of smaller abattoirs, primarily focusing on the supply chain. The Government should ensure that the supply chain—and abattoirs—are encompassed within their food strategy. Part of the review should include looking closely not only at a second round of the smaller abattoir fund, but at whether there are circumstances in which smaller abattoirs do not need the additional costs of energy. What plans does the Minister have for regulatory reform in the abattoir sector? At a time when the Government are advocating for greater alignment with Europe, does he recognise that many of the EU directives still in force in this country did great damage to our smaller abattoirs? There is also growing concern about the financial burden placed on our smaller abattoirs by the Food Standards Agency, to which Members have referred. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that smaller abattoirs are not disproportionately affected by the rise in inspection costs? More broadly, what is he doing to ensure that the FSA delivers value for money? The debate has rightly acknowledged the FSA’s rollout of increased charges. The uplift from March 2025, which impacts our smaller abattoirs, will have a direct impact in this financial year and the next. The Opposition agree with the National Farmers Union that the further pressure on the small and medium-sized abattoirs that are struggling with additional costs and regulatory burdens has been exacerbated by the implications of the FSA’s additional charging. Furthermore, we want clarity from the Government about what they intend to do on the 5% rule, which would significantly reduce the regulatory burden for the smallest abattoirs. As we know, if such a rule was in place it would enable smaller abattoirs to slaughter up to 5% of the total national throughput without triggering a full veterinary presence and therefore without the additional costs associated with their going above 1,000 units and having veterinary officers present. Will the Minister indicate the Government’s intentions on the 5% rule? The Government must also consider the benefits to small abattoirs of future food labelling reviews. Will the Minister tell us the Government’s intentions? Better consumer awareness through food labelling would help smaller abattoirs to sell their produce as more humane, more local and better placed for the consumer. I would appreciate it if he outlined the Government’s intentions in that regard. To summarise, our rural economy has faced additional pressures not just through the family farm tax and the removal of the SFI but through the dramatic reduction in de-linked payments to £7,200. It is being further hit by the dramatic reduction in small abattoirs and consequently the reduced ability to slaughter produce at a local facility. I call on the Government not only to roll out additional incentives nationally through the smaller abattoir fund but to take on board the many contributions that have been made in the debate, so they can ensure that our farmers and our rural economy continue to thrive.
On the 80th anniversary of VE Day, I thank those who fought for our and Europe’s freedom and, indeed, those who worked our land and kept our nation fed. Our peatlands store 26 times more carbon than forests. They improve water quality and protect communities up and down the UK from flooding. The Nature Minister rightly called peatlands our “country’s Amazon rainforest” and launched a consultation to protect them. She is right, because once they have been destroyed, they can never be replaced. At the very same time, the Energy Secretary plans to rip up 2,000 hectares of protected peatland on historic land in West Yorkshire for a vast wind farm development, opening up communities to flooding and destroying the peatlands that Labour says it wants to protect. How can the Government claim to be protecting our irreplaceable peatlands when the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is actively considering destroying one of our most environmentally important landscapes in the country?