We are already working with our partners to take action to protect and enhance chalk streams, which are precious habitats. That includes reforming abstraction, improving water quality through the Environment Agency’s water industry national environment programme, and legislating to support those measures. However, as I said at a roundtable that I ran this week with water companies, chalk streams are vital. We have to do something to look after them, and we will be hosting a conference on this on 16 October.
I am grateful for that reply. Last year, water companies discharged sewage into our precious chalk streams and rivers in North West Norfolk and across the country 200,000 times. I welcome my hon. Friend’s efforts to tackle that unacceptable level. Will she instruct the Environment Agency to take more enforcement action, and will she assure me that the new powers in the Environment Bill will be used to set tough, legally binding targets?
We know that effective regulation is the key to preventing pollution from affecting water quality. That is why a range of enforcement and sanction options are open to the Environment Agency, which we expect to be used wherever necessary. We also expect water companies to set out how they will manage sewage discharges through drainage and wastewater management plans. However, I acknowledge that further action is necessary, particularly on sewage pollution and combined sewage outlets. I referenced that at the roundtable earlier this week, and more work will be going on.
Recognising that commodity supply chains are a major driver of deforestation, the Government established the global resource initiative taskforce. Following the taskforce’s recommendations, we are consulting on proposals for a new world-leading due diligence law and working to forge an international alliance on supply chains at COP26. UK international climate finance is also used to protect the world’s most biodiverse forests, with £5.8 billion committed between 2016 and 2021.
Ruth Edwards
I thank my hon. Friend for her answer, and I welcome the Government’s consultation in this area. May I urge her to make our landmark Environment Bill even more world-leading by including legislative measures on due diligence?
We have a manifesto commitment that, in all our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental, animal welfare and food standards. We have retained in law our existing standards of protection. We have laid before the House our negotiating objectives, stating that we will uphold those, and we most recently established the Trade and Agriculture Commission.
Air Quality
National Food Strategy
Animal Welfare Offences
UK-grown Produce
Healthy and Sustainable Food
Smaller Farmers: Supermarket Prices
Flood Defences
Animal Welfare Standards
Sustainable Fishing
Topical Questions
Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body
House of Lords: Relocation
Church Commissioners
Covid-19: Mental Health
Electoral Commission Committee
Covid-19: Electoral Arrangements
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION
Carrier Strike Report
Electoral Commission Committee
Electoral Commission: Independence
House of Commons Commission
House of Commons: Strategic Direction
Electoral Commission Committee
Electoral Commission
Church Commissioners
Covid-19: National Recovery
Covid-19: Financial Support
Church Services: Innovation
Palace of Westminster: Restoration and Renewal
20 of 167 shown
Rebecca Pow
ConservativeTaunton Deane
I thank my hon. Friend for being on the ball about the Environment Bill in particular. It will be back before the House very soon and will fulfil the Government’s manifesto commitment to deliver the most ambitious environmental programme in any country on earth. We understand the eagerness about measures in relation to due diligence, but we do not want to anticipate the outcome of the consultation. Any decisions on the next steps on these measures will be confirmed in the Government’s formal response to the consultation, which will be published after the consultation closes on 5 October, but we are very positive about it.
Many of my constituents, including Nimmi Soni, have written to me with their concerns about the Government’s commitment to protecting food standards. The Secretary of State is right that in its manifesto his party promised not to compromise on food standards in trade deals, but twice—twice—the Government have refused to support Labour amendments to put that into law. If over 70% of people do not want us to sell food imported from countries with lower food standards, and more than 1 million people have signed a National Farmers Union petition for British food standards to be put into law, why are the Government refusing to do what the public want and expect? The country has a right to know.
In retained EU law, we have indeed put in place the existing prohibitions on the sale of, for instance, poultry washed with chlorine and beef treated with hormones. We have legal prohibitions and our own legal bans on certain practices. Those remain in place and will not change.
Yesterday was Back British Farming Day, but while our farmers are at risk of being undercut in future trade deals, it will take more than just one day of wheatsheaf-wearing to protect them. Will the Secretary of State support the amendment in the House of Lords to put the Trade and Agriculture Commission on firmer footing, especially to offset the clear conflict of interest of Tony Abbott negotiating agricultural trade deals with Australia that could risk British farmers’ livelihoods further?
Tony Abbott is one of a number of people on the Board of Trade. Their role is to champion British exports overseas. They do not decide Government policy or the Government’s negotiating mandate; those negotiations are led by the Secretary of State for International Trade. We have set up a food and agriculture and trade standards commission, and it is already meeting. It does not need to be placed on a statutory footing.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Nancy Pelosi and several other American politicians have said that there will be no trade deal with the US if the UK reneges on treaties that it has signed up to, as the Government intend to do with the EU withdrawal agreement. Given that the UK Government dumped food standards from the Agriculture Bill to pursue a US deal that now appears dead, what options will the Secretary of State be looking at to restore those protections, and can we see guarantees on food standards for imports written into law?
There are a number of ways in which we secure standards on food imports. One is through the prohibitions on sale, as I have already mentioned, which include things such as poultry washed with chlorine or hormones in beef. There is also the sanitary and phytosanitary chapter that exists in every trade deal that sets out our requirements for the safety and standards of food coming in. Finally, of course, we use tariff policy to take account of certain practices in other countries.
What advice has the Secretary of State asked for or been given about the liability of the UK Government for damages arising from their failure to ensure that our current standards are upheld in any future trade deal? Will the Government be prepared to compensate farmers and other food producers whose businesses suffer as a result? Will consumers whose health is affected be similarly entitled to compensation?