MPs urge ministers to introduce long-awaited rules on supply chain deforestation
Under the previous Government's proposals, businesses will be prohibited from using or selling goods containing palm oil, cocoa, beef, leather and soy linked to deforestation.
This due diligence system was part of the 2021 Environment Act but ministers are yet to bring forward the necessary secondary legislation or set a timetable for when they will do so.
EAC chairman Toby Perkins asked Mr Reed to set out a specific date for introducing the legislation 'ideally before the New Year' so that the rules can be in place for the new financial year in April.
The letter said: 'Delays in bringing forward this legislation makes the Cop15 agreement to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, and the UK's commitment to ending deforestation and forest degradation by 2030, harder to achieve.
'However, it also leaves businesses with uncertainty and will leave them with less time to prepare and comply with the regime.
'On 2 June, in your response to the Committee, you recognised the urgency of taking action to ensure forest risk commodities are not driving deforestation and stated you would set out the Government approach in due course.'
Several British supermarkets recently warned that they are in 'limbo' waiting for the Government to introduce the new rules.
In an open letter earlier this month, retailers such as Tesco, Sainsbury's and Lidl said deforestation presents an increasing risk to supply chain stability as well as food security.
But they also said the UK could suffer millions in export losses to the European Union if Government inaction leaves businesses unprepared to comply with the bloc's own deforestation rules, which are due to come into force at the end of this year.
Asked recently whether the Government has a timetable for introducing the legislation, the Environment Secretary told the PA news agency: 'Currently no, but we are working at pace so we can do this as quickly as possible.'
On the supermarkets' letter and whether the Government is looking to speed up progress on introducing the rules, Mr Reed said: 'Absolutely.'
'I agree with the supermarkets,' he said. 'The previous Government was just dragging their heels without ever coming to a conclusion about what we do about protecting forests in other countries as well as in our own country.
'And of course forests, trees, woodlands were very important for capturing carbon and cleaning the atmosphere so we don't want to be importing food that has been grown where the forests have been destroyed.
'The Government is working with supermarkets, with food producers and internationally to make sure we get the outcome and we can do that as soon as possible to give everybody certainty about how we move forward on this.'
PA has contacted the Environment Department for comment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
21 minutes ago
- The Independent
Business news live: FTSE 100 to open near record high and latest bitcoin price after fall
The FTSE 100 rose to new highs once again last week, tipping the scales well above 9,100 points after a particularly strong day on Thursday which saw the likes of BT Group rise ten per cent. The British companies index is up more than 11 per cent this year, outpacing the key US benchmarks. Meanwhile, key upcoming UK economy data this week includes mortgage approvals and the Nationwide House Price Index. Additionally, there is likely to be more news emerging on how the government may tackle pension reform, amid debate over what age the state pension should be and whether the tax relief rate on pension contributions may be altered. In other markets, bitcoin fell towards the end of last week, from the highs above $123,000 down to around $115,000, with gold also retreating as investors took a risk-on approach once more.
Daily Mail
22 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Radical tax and retirement proposal that could affect every Aussie: What you need to know
Public servants within Anthony Albanese 's own government have suggested access to the age pension needs to be wound back for wealthy baby boomers because it's too costly. The Department of Social Services - in an incoming brief to new Social Services Minister Tanya Plibersek - suggested lower-income Australians were paying for the lifestyles of the rich, who were living off the age pension under existing rules exempting the family home from the assets test. 'Low-and-middle income taxpayers are subsidising the retirement incomes of seniors with significant wealth in addition to their homes,' it said. The departmental brief, prepared independently of the new Labor minister's office, noted couples could still receive the age pension even as they continued to earn six-figure annual incomes from their investments. 'Age pension continues to be payable to couples with income of almost $100,000 a year or assets of almost $1.05million, in addition to their principal home of unlimited value,' it said. The department said this was unfair compared with the treatment of the unemployed, who had to wait 13 weeks to receive JobSeeker if they had more than $11,500 in the bank. A spokeswoman for Ms Plibersek said the government had no plans to impose a stricter assets test for the age pension. 'The government appreciates independent, frank and fearless advice from its agencies,' she told Daily Mail Australia. The Department of Social Services - in an incoming brief to new Social Services Minister Tanya Plibersek (pictured) - suggested lower-income Australians were paying for the lifestyles of the rich, living off the age pension under existing rules exempting the family home from the assets test 'The government has no plans to include the family home in the pension assets test.' This is despite Treasury forecasting an 'expected increase in the number of age pension recipients as the Australian population ages'. More than $109billion is set to be spent on aged care in 2025-26 as government spending as a proportion of the economy hits the highest level since 1986 outside of Covid. Capital gains tax discount Ahead of the government's Economic Reform Roundtable next month, Westpac chief economist Luci Ellis has suggested scrapping the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount, introduced in 1999, because it fuelled property market speculation and made houses unaffordable. 'There is a lot of prior work pointing out the incentives to speculate in property created by discounted CGT,' she told Daily Mail Australia. 'The issue is that discounting CGT, as currently, means that people would rather have capital gains than cash income from an investment. 'So it means people are better off from a tax perspective buying an existing property than investing in a business or some other productivity-enhancing investment.' Ms Ellis, a former assistant governor at the Reserve Bank of Australia, has proposed replacing the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount with indexation fixed at 2.5 per cent, or the mid-point of the RBA's two to three per cent inflation target. 'This is easier to calculate and doesn't require people to know the history of inflation to calculate their tax liability,' she said. 'My proposal to instead charge full marginal tax rate on CGT will eliminate the incentive to favour capital-gains-producing investments over productivity-boosting ones.' Ms Ellis' call to axe the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount, on behalf of Westpac Economics, is shared by grassroots group Labor for Housing and the Greens. She put that view last week to teal MP Allegra Spender's tax roundtable in Canberra, but Labor had ruled out that option in Opposition after losing the 2016 and 2019 elections with that policy. Her call on the capital gains tax is not the view of the Westpac Banking Group, which is this week putting in a separate submission to the government's Economic Reform Roundtable. With only deficits forecast in coming years, the Department of Social Services noted funding welfare for the elderly would be a financial challenge, with the proportion of Australians older than 65 increasing by 31 per cent since 2000. Almost two-thirds, or 65 per cent, of people aged 65 and over receive income support payments, with 92 per cent of them getting the age pension. Australians can access the age pension at 67. 'Australia's demographics are evolving and will have broader implications for fiscal and social policy and demands for services,' the department said. 'Life expectancy is rising, and fertility rates are declining, reducing the working age population and influencing family composition and structures.' The department also suggested Australia would continue relying on high immigration so there was tax revenue from a working age population to support older Australians. 'Overseas migration is expected to continue to support population growth, offsetting demographic and economic challenges to some extent, as higher immigration correlates with higher tax revenue and increases in working-age population,' it said. Unaffordable housing was likely to see younger generations become increasingly reliant on their parents for housing. 'Concerns of intergenerational inequalities are growing, and young people's circumstances are falling short of their expectations,' the Department of Social Services said. 'As more rely on family for financial support and/or housing well into adulthood, they experience delayed milestones including education, employment, family, and home ownership. 'Many also struggle with compounding and competing responsibilities of paid employment and unpaid care. 'This has implications on household incomes, workforce participation, gender equality, and may have greater social, economic, and intergenerational ramifications.'
Telegraph
32 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Sir Keir should not emulate Hugh Grant
His feet had barely touched British soil before Donald Trump started swinging his big stick. 'You better get your act together or you're not going to have Europe anymore,' he lambasted his Western allies after arriving in Scotland to visit his golf courses (not for the 47th president, concerns about second jobs). 'You've got to stop this horrible invasion that is happening to Europe, many countries in Europe… this immigration is killing Europe.' Setting aside the rights and wrongs of British immigration policy, our beleaguered Prime Minister would be forgiven for feeling a little peeved. What other American president would have presumed to blend personal and state business so brazenly and deliver such insulting rhetoric into the bargain? Amid social unrest in Epping, Reform on the march and small boats arrivals up by a staggering 50 per cent, immigration is Sir Keir's Achilles' heel. With his approval ratings at rock bottom, the last thing he needed was a punishment beating from Trump. Certainly, Sir Keir's backbenchers will be begging him to stand up to the Donald, if only to appease their voters in places like Ashton-under-Lyne, where many may be tempted by the Corbyn-Sultana cult or a Gaza Independent at the next election. Did Sir Sadiq Khan recommend that the Prime Minister reprise the 20ft Trump 'baby blimp' that he authorised to be flown above Parliament during the presidential visit of 2018? I wouldn't be surprised. And he wouldn't have been the only one. In the Left-wing mind, the 2003 romantic comedy Love Actually looms disproportionately large. This is for the sake of one scene alone. In it, Hugh Grant – whom most progressives, particularly those of a Liberal Democrat persuasion, wish was the prime minister in real life – upbraids the American president at a press conference. 'I fear that this has become a bad relationship; a relationship based on the president taking exactly what he wants and casually ignoring all those things that really matter to Britain,' Grant lectures his opposite number, played by Billy Bob Thornton. 'We may be a small country, but we're a great one, too… and a friend who bullies us is no longer a friend. And since bullies only respond to strength, from now onward I will be prepared to be much stronger. And the president should be prepared for that.' Forgive me for quoting that Richard Curtis idiocy at such length. But that is precisely what Guardianista-in-chief Polly Toynbee did in a petulant little column before Sir Keir's visit to the White House in February, under the screaming headline: 'Starmer has the backing of Britons to stand up to Trumpism.' I rest my case. But does he? When it comes to immigration, the opposite would appear to be the case. Although 55 per cent of Labour voters want the numbers to stay the same or go up, polls show that most of the population wishes them very much reduced, with 32 per cent viewing immigration as a 'bad' or 'very bad' thing. Small boats get people's backs up even more. For all his braggadocio and swagger, the sorry truth is that on this issue, Donald Trump speaks for a greater number of Britons than our own prime minister. For this reason, Sir Keir would be best advised to tell his backbenchers to pipe down. Trump's big stick has caused the PM enough pain already. Tweaking the orange tail might play well to certain parts of the gallery but after a year of economic mismanagement, we are hardly able to withstand the tariffs with which Trump would surely retaliate. Whatever Hugh Grant may think.
