Animal Welfare (Responsibility for Dog Attacks) Bill

Matt Rodda Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) for her work in this important area of policy. We are a nation of dog lovers, as was said earlier, and people in Britain care deeply about animal welfare. The Opposition therefore of course support the Bill. I want to speak briefly in support of it and raise a constituency case, which is similar to one that she mentioned earlier.

I found the story of Millie and her owner Michael deeply moving. The hon. Lady was right to describe the attack as being like a horror movie. I had a similar case in my constituency of Reading East, where an attack happened in Cintra Park—a local park—and a woman who was walking her beloved pet dog had that dog savaged by a much larger dog, which was well known in that area of the town. Unfortunately, because it was a dog-on-dog attack, there were no powers available to local police to tackle that terrible incident—it was absolutely appalling. The little dog that was attacked had to be taken for surgery and is lucky to have survived.

Therefore, I think the Bill is well researched and the hon. Lady’s points well made. I seek clarification from the Minister on whether dogs that are not killed but severely injured could be protected by the Bill. I hope for good news on that front. In that spirit, may I offer the official Opposition’s support for the Bill? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, with more detail on that point and other related matters. I thank the hon. Lady again for her hard work on this important area of policy.

Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 17th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on her progress with this important Bill. Livestock worrying causes havoc for farmers up and down the country. The vast majority of dogs are lovable and good-natured family pets, and most owners are responsible and would never dream of letting their pet chase down, never mind attack, livestock in fields. However, a small minority of dogs are not kept under control, and run loose and aggressively chase down, attack and sometimes even kill livestock, leaving farmers to deal with the stress of their animals’ injury and death.

We have heard growing concerns in the farming community about dog attacks. Farmers regularly tell me about their personal experiences of dogs chasing or attacking their livestock. A horrific incident was reported to me where someone deliberately set several aggressive XL bully dogs on a flock of sheep, deliberately training them to become more aggressive. The farmer called the police, but they did not consider it a serious enough crime even to turn up—far too often the story with rural crime. There are too many cases like that.

The National Farmers Union found that UK farm animals worth an estimated £2.4 million were severely injured or killed by dogs in 2023 alone—a staggering cost at a time when farmers face a devastating storm of rising energy bills, high personal taxation and the damaging effects of severe and repeated flooding. I am deeply concerned about the emotional and psychological impact of these incidents on farmers, when their mental health is increasingly at risk. We see that in the tragic fact that farming now has the highest suicide rate of any sector in the UK economy.

I am very pleased that the right hon. Member and the Minister have listened to calls made on Second Reading and in Committee for stronger sanctions against owners of dogs involved in livestock worrying. I welcome the right hon. Member’s amendment in response to requests to allow much more severe penalties, but it is a shame that the Bill does not go further on disqualification in facilitating further deterrence. I listened to what she said about disqualification, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) said in Committee, the fact that disqualification was brought forward in the original Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill suggests that the Bill is an appropriate place for it.

I wonder whether the right hon. Member has looked further into the merits of including a requirement for dogs to be kept on leads when in close proximity to livestock. The Opposition were not convinced by the Minister’s explanation of why he thought the costs outweighed the benefits of doing that. Again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge argued, it is entirely reasonable to require dogs to be on leads around livestock. At the very least, we should do more to educate dog owners on how to control their pets and stop them escaping and causing havoc while on the loose. We should certainly promote greater awareness of the countryside code.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent contribution by highlighting the need for dogs to be on leads and the terrible pressures on farmers at this difficult time. Further to the point about education and information for owners, sadly there is a small minority of irresponsible dog owners who have caused terrible problems for farmers. There is a much broader group of dog owners who are responsible, and the point about encouraging the use of leads is important. Would he like further information to be provided to dog owners and families with dogs, to remind them of the importance of having their dog on a lead when they are near livestock?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend makes an important point and perhaps the Minister will address it. In many cases, of course, when a pet dog attacks animals, the owner will say, “They’ve never done that before—it didn’t happen before,” but clearly it can. The more education people have about the risks, the more likely they are to take action that would prevent that from happening.

In summary, the Bill is a big step forward in supporting farmers and protecting their livestock. The Opposition are keen to see the measures in the Bill introduced as quickly as possible, as they are long overdue and clearly urgently needed. We continue to support this legislation and I wish it well as it continues its journey through the House.

Thames Water: Contingency Plans

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Friday 15th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for granting me the opportunity to have a debate on this important issue.

Since 2020, Thames Water has dumped over 72 billion litres of raw sewage into rivers in London, polluting our waterways and damaging our natural environments. It has done so while accruing billions of pounds of debt and increasingly failing to provide basic services to the nearly 25% of the country it supplies, including my constituents in Richmond Park. Despite this, Thames Water executives have paid themselves almost £8 million in bonuses over recent years, lining their pockets while the company they run continues to pollute our rivers and streams.

For my constituents in particular, the name Thames Water has understandably become a byword for poor quality, slapdash repair work, damaging environmental practices, and barely concealed contempt for its bill payers.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. My constituents have suffered quite seriously from similar issues, including interruption to water supply to a large part of Reading recently and, indeed, considerable sewage discharges in the river, which, outrageously, are sometimes visible to passers-by who use our bridges and walk by the riverside.

[Sarah Olney]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about sewage discharges. We have had a recent one in Teddington lock in my constituency, causing a great deal of distress to local people.

During my time as the MP for Richmond Park, I have received dozens of reports of Thames Water’s negligence. In 2020, more than 1,200 homes in Richmond were left without central heating or hot water for five days when water from a burst pipe ingressed the gas network. Last year, a burst water main on the Manor Circus roundabout went unattended for days, delaying the completion of roadworks that were causing chaos in the area. My residents in north Kingston have had to make their peace with constant congestion caused by an unending series of emergency repair works—all because this failing water giant cannot get its act together. That is just a mere snapshot of the chaos that Thames Water causes for my constituents every day.

To add insult to injury, Thames Water is now planning to build a pipeline across a nature reserve in my constituency. The controversial Teddington direct river abstraction project will allow Thames Water to take water from the Thames and replace it with treated sewage just above Teddington lock. The pipeline’s construction will put a rare and valuable ecosystem under threat and subject my residents in Ham and north Kingston to years of building work. This project is only necessary because Thames Water is losing hundreds of millions of litres of water a day through leaks in its system.

My constituents are yet again suffering, because the company has spent years paying out hundreds of millions of pounds in dividends to shareholders, instead of investing in its infrastructure. They have to live with the congestion on the streets, the threat of major construction in their parks and the sewage running through their river. Now, they are picking up the tab for Thames Water’s total mismanagement of its finances. I was recently contacted by a constituent who has seen his water bill rise by just over 60% between 2020 and 2024. Every year, more and more of my constituents’ income is going towards propping up a company that shows an utter disregard for them and their community.

It was therefore infuriating to see recent reports in the Financial Times that Thames Water has been lobbying the Government and the industry regulator, Ofwat, to let it increase bills further, pay dividends and face lower fines as it seeks to avoid financial collapse. This is despite Conservative Ministers already bending over backwards to avoid cracking down on polluting water companies. It is extraordinary that the country’s largest water company could be allowed by this Government to give its executives millions in bonuses while failing to fulfil its basic functions, but that is the situation that has been allowed to occur for far too long.

Over the past few weeks, I have therefore been calling on Conservative Ministers to publish their contingency plan, Project Timber, for what they will do if Thames Water goes bust. Frustratingly, my demands have continually been refused, with the response being that “it would not be appropriate” to publish the plan. This is despite what is now overwhelming public interest to do so.

With the news this week, however, that Thames Water was the only water firm that had refused to contribute to a new £180 million anti-pollution fund, the alarm bells became deafening about its financial status. And when I asked the Prime Minister at PMQs this week whether he could confirm that this broken company will still exist by the end of the year, he was unable to answer. That is why, today, I stand here to call not only for the publication of Project Timber, but for further, more drastic action.

Last month, the Government passed new legislation, which allows the High Court to appoint a special administrator to take over a failing water firm. With Thames Water clearly unable to pay its debts and with its latest refusal to contribute investment to combat sewage, I believe the threshold has now been met for the Government to take this as a course of action.

That is why I now speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats in calling on the Government to put Thames Water into special administration. Under these new proposals, the taxpayer would not be liable for any debts, and the special administrator could restructure this failing firm into a company for the public benefit. That would ensure no interruption in service for millions of households across the capital and the south of England, while allowing the company to be stabilised—no longer relying on its failing board. Further, by enacting those special measures, Thames Water could restart efforts to stop harmful sewage discharges into rivers and lakes. This would also guarantee no further executive bonuses are paid, following the near millions which have been paid to senior officials in recent years. We therefore face two options: to continue allowing Thames Water slowly sink into financial ruin, or to act now to restructure this failed company and start getting it working again for the public benefit.

To conclude, after years of letting Thames Water pollute our rivers, fail to perform basic functions and charge customers higher and higher bills, enough is enough. Rather than continue to let the asset strippers run Thames Water into the ground, the Liberal Democrats are clear: we cannot let this situation continue. Thames Water is no longer a functioning company, and the Government have a choice: either bail them out with taxpayer money, or listen to our calls to put it into special administration to then be reformed into a company for the public benefit. After years of Conservative Ministers refusing to take action, this vital step is needed to safeguard customers, steady the ship and get our country’s largest water company functioning again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Spencer]

I do not want to be drawn into the specific cases of specific companies because there are market sensitivities, but it is clear that these regulations exist for all bodies that provide us with energy, banking, water and all those vital services that our constituents expect not to fall over. The Government have a plan to support those vital sectors in moments of distress. The Government’s priority is the ongoing provision of water and waste water services.

[Matt Rodda]

Can the Minister advise me on the course of action where a water company appears not to be offering compensation where there has been an interruption in supply? Will he perhaps write to me on this matter? A large number of my constituents—several hundred people— have recently had a supply interruption. I inquired with Thames Water some weeks ago as to whether it will pay compensation, but I have not yet had a reply. We are in some distress about this matter. Many residents were affected for two days and were unable to have a shower, do their washing or perform other domestic tasks.

[Mark Spencer]

I am aware of the distress that being without water will have caused to the hon. Gentleman’s residents. Of course, I will write to him formally to set out what he can do.

I hope that I have been able to reassure the House that Ofwat continues to work closely with the water companies and their investors. Where it has been determined that financial resilience needs to be strengthened, a wide range of options is available to all water companies.

By highlighting the existence of the water industry special administration regime, I hope that I have provided reassurance that the Government have a transparent plan and are prepared for all eventualities when it comes to the provision of vital public services.

Question put and agreed to.

Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill

Matt Rodda Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

It is an absolute privilege to speak in support of the Bill and better health and welfare standards in our dog, cat and ferret import industry. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on introducing the Bill. I admire the work that she done to tighten our importation regulations and advance animal welfare standards for some of our most loved pets. Her work is even more important given the absence of any Government legislation to introduce such measures.

Many of my constituents, and many people in the country more broadly, will be heartened by the hon. Member’s dedication to improving the welfare of our imported pets. With National Pet Day on 11 April fast approaching, the debate is timely. National Pet Day celebrates the contribution of pets to our lives, and highlights the care and welfare requirements of our animals. Just a week earlier, National Ferret Day will be marked on 2 April, celebrating the estimated 100,000 pet ferrets in the UK. The contributions that cats and dogs make to our lives will be celebrated on their namesake days, on 8 and 26 August respectively.

That shows and proves that we are a nation of animal lovers—and one that holds particular affection for cats and dogs. Like many other Members, I am sure, I grew up with dogs—mainly Lancashire heelers. That is, sadly, a dying breed, but they are wonderful dogs that are particularly special to my West Lancashire constituency, where we have two kinds of heeler: the Lancashire heeler and the Ormskirk heeler. We had Scamp, who was a vicious little beast but was loved nevertheless, as well as Pal, Beauty, Becky 1 and, sadly, Becky 2, Tilly, Tiny and Pippin. Everybody in the family was involved in naming those dogs, and they were very much a part of our family life growing up. As an adult, I have always had cats. Unfortunately, we most recently lost Colin to a congenital heart disease.

Research from the World Population Review this year revealed that the United Kingdom is home to about 12 million dogs—the sixth largest population of dogs in the world. Research from various organisations including the PDSA puts the percentage of UK households home to a dog at between 29% and 31%, which is huge. As of 2023, the number of cats owned is almost as high as dogs, with 11 million cats across the United Kingdom.

To the many people across this country with a dog, cat or ferret, these animals are not just pets, but valued members of our families. For others, a dog or cat can offer the much-needed companionship they may not otherwise have. We saw the social and personal benefit of animal ownership throughout the pandemic, when 3.2 million pets were purchased during the periods of lockdown. Lacking social interaction and instead facing social isolation, individuals and families alike sought the great companionship that pets can provide. With this nation’s love and affection for our feline and canine friends in mind, I believe the Bill’s provisions will be welcomed by many of our constituents.

To understand the importance of the Bill, it is essential to understand the current issues around puppy, kitten and ferret smuggling. Currently, these animals can enter this country in two primary ways: under the non-commercial rules of the pet travel scheme, or via the commercial importation regime. Pet travel rules have made travelling with pets both cheaper and easier for owners. However, these non-commercial rules have been abused by puppy and kitten smugglers, particularly those who care not for the health and welfare of these animals, but for the financial reward from this exploitative practice. Traders have fraudulently claimed pet ownership of numerous puppies and kittens to import these animals under the non-commercial rules of the pet travel scheme, yet these puppies and kittens are commercially sold upon importation.

Requirements for owners travelling with a pet are less stringent than those for commercial import, and rightly so—that is perfectly understandable. Smugglers have therefore sought to abuse the pet travel importation route to circumvent more stringent health regulations for their animals. It is the health and welfare of puppies, kittens and ferrets that is frequently compromised when these pets are illegally smuggled into the United Kingdom.

As I suggested when I outlined the sheer number of these pets in this country, the demand for cats and dogs is extremely high. The demand for young puppies and kittens from high-value breeds is similarly high, as is, sadly, the demand for animals with certain mutilations. Cropped-ear dogs and declawed cats are both in demand, despite the illegality of both mutilations in this country. The sheer demand for dogs and cats of all types, coupled with the demand for dogs and cats with illegal mutilations under UK law, has encouraged the abuse of our animal importation rules. With less stringent regulation, pet importation has been feigned, and the health and welfare of imported animals has suffered. In 2021, almost 1,000 dogs and cats were detained for being non-compliant with existing animal health and welfare legislation, and that is just the number of identified imported animals. As with any illicit industry, the true figure could well be far higher.

It is with those issues in mind that I welcome the Bill’s provisions, which will offer far greater protection for the health and welfare of dog, cats and ferrets imported into this country. The measures outlined are eminently sensible. To address the abuse of non-commercial importation rules, it is my understanding that the Bill will reduce the number of animals that can travel under the non-commercial rules from five per person to five per vehicle, or three per foot passenger or air passenger. Right now, smugglers are benefiting from non-commercial pet importation rules, so reducing the number that any one person can claim as a pet when travelling will impinge further on the fraudulent use of this importation route and the associated health and welfare costs of puppy smuggling under this system.

More broadly, the Bill’s provisions will put in place higher health and welfare standards for imported puppies and kittens. Banning the import of puppies and kittens under six months of age seems very reasonable because separating puppies or kittens from their mothers too early carries a risk of illness or even death for those young animals. We know that the separation of puppies from their mothers is not advisable at all before eight weeks for exactly those reasons.

In the United Kingdom, it is illegal for a licence holder to sell a puppy as a pet or to permanently separate it from its biological mother before eight weeks; and for those who may choose to sell a litter from a family pet, there is a consensus among many welfare and veterinary organisations, such as the Animal Welfare Foundation, the Blue Cross, the PDSA and Dogs Trust, that puppies should not be separated until this age. The emotional and physical distress experienced by both the mother and the puppy can be immense, and if not fatal, it can have behavioural consequences for these animals throughout their lives. Each week a puppy spends with its mother is crucial for its social and behavioural development. Bite inhibition and gentle play are taught in this environment and are essential before a puppy is rehomed.

The recognition of harm to kittens separated from their mothers at a young age is also already recognised in legislation. In this country it is illegal for a licensed breeder to sell a kitten under the age of eight weeks of age. In recent months this place has shown great concern about the possession of dangerous dogs that pose a risk to public health. Ensuring a suitable age for imported dogs and the welfare of these animals should therefore be an equally high priority in this House.

To prevent the proliferation of a dangerous dog population in the UK, we need to prevent the importation of animals at higher risk of displaying dangerous behavioural traits. This should include prohibiting young puppies without the behavioural maturity and bite inhibition that they learn from their mothers. That is why this Bill’s provision to ban the importation of puppies, kittens and ferrets under the age of six months can only be a positive step towards greater animal welfare standards and towards reducing our population of dangerous dogs that may pose a threat to public health.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent, thoughtful and well-researched speech. Does she agree that there is a need for greater public information and education, as previously mentioned in the debate, to reduce the risk of young age puppies being sold?

[Ashley Dalton]

I thank my hon. Friend for his considered intervention and agree wholeheartedly that we need to make sure that public information and education is improved. Many people do not understand the impact and possible implications of taking a young puppy or kitten so early. They often do this out of the goodness of their heart, and with the best intentions of wanting to look after a young puppy or kitten or get one for their children, but we need to ensure that people are aware of the long-term and often permanent damage that can be done to young puppies and kittens in this way. By removing the ability to import puppies and kittens under the age of six months, we can likely remove the incentive for these animals to be stripped from their mothers at a critically young age and thus reduce the numbers of puppies and kittens suffering from the health and welfare consequences of premature separation.

We should also prohibit the import of dogs and cats that have been mutilated, which several Members have talked about. Those animals have often suffered the trauma of unnecessary procedures such as ear cropping and tail docking. Such mutilations have no health benefits; they are abusive practices recognised in UK law as illegal. They offer only emotional and physical trauma to the animals on which they are inflicted. Preventing the importation of animals with these traumatic mutilations will also prevent the importation of animals which, as a result of the physical and emotional trauma caused by the mutilations, can develop behavioural changes.

Dogs with cropped ears or docked tails may be recognised by certain members of the public as being more aggressive or dangerous. We hear that regularly—or at any rate I do, in my surgeries. If people keep their own pets away from these animals, which they often do for fear of aggression towards them or their dogs, the animals will suffer further from a lack of socialisation and their behaviour will worsen further. Similarly, the banning of imports of dogs and cats with mutilations will protect puppies and kittens from harmful practices, and will hopefully instigate a decline in demand for pets with certain physical characteristics. If it is illegal to import a puppy with cropped ears, it is common sense that the incentive to crop that puppy’s ears at its location of origin will be diminished. If it cannot be imported and sold legally in the UK, it is logical to conclude that that characteristic will lose the value that it once had to the importer.

We may also hope that the criminalisation of certain mutilations will reduce the demand for these practices from the consumer, along with the education referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda). In this place, I frequently hear the argument that the criminalisation of any activity may increase the attractiveness of engaging in whatever is being criminalised, but in the case of animal welfare I do not find that argument particularly convincing. We are a nation of animal lovers, and I believe that following the criminalisation of certain mutilations, those wanting to buy a puppy or kitten may understand better the harm associated with these practices and choose to shun the imported animals. We ban them because of the mutilations and because they are damaging, not just because this is a fashion that we do not like.

As for those whose conscience does not prohibit them from requiring a mutilated puppy or kitten, the recognition of their pet’s becoming illegal in the future might. We can hope that both the importer and the consumer will be discouraged from mutilating and acquiring mutilated animals respectively. The legal importation will all but disappear, and we may hope—optimistically—that the illegal smuggling trade will face several disruptions, with the broader recognition of the harm that mutilated animals have endured.

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill  

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mike Penning]

This House thinks the practice is cruel, and that is why we are changing things with this legislation today. Frankly, what our European friends do, now that we are out of there, is down to them. We can talk to them, be friends with them and do lots of things with them, but we do not have to do what they tell us to do anymore. That is crucial.

There is one amendment that I would have been the first to support, had the Opposition or the Government wanted to table it, and that is on foie gras. I cannot understand why they have not. I spoke on Second Reading about amendments that should have been tabled. Why on earth is something whose production is banned in this country, because it is cruel, allowed to be imported and sold in this country? That is a mistake in the Bill. I am sure that amendments might be tabled in the other House. If they were tabled in this House, they would be agreed. Those amendments should be made to the Bill, but perhaps I will speak a bit more on that on Third Reading.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak tonight in favour of the Labour amendments and to briefly pay tribute to constituents who have raised these important matters with me and other colleagues. I stress the significant public interest in this issue. Like other colleagues, I have had a large amount of correspondence. We all want to see this change. We do not want to see live animal exports in any shape or form, and I appreciate the effort my colleagues have gone to in identifying future risks, which should be taken seriously.

I welcome the legislation, but I regret the delays in it coming to the House. I also ask the Government again to support wider measures to improve animal welfare. I commend the work of the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) and the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) who just spoke about the possibility of tackling foie gras. Those are serious points, and the hon. Member for Crawley has done excellent work on trophy hunting. I was proud to be able to support that work.

I will turn to the Labour amendments, which are in the name of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones). As she said, the Bill leaves open the possibility of other animals being exploited. She is right to point that out, because some of the species mentioned in the Labour amendments are farmed in the UK. There is deer farming and the hunting of deer in woodland. I have seen llamas being farmed in the Thames valley. I understand there is a possibility that these species could be traded. I am concerned by that, and we are right to raise these points from the Opposition Benches.

The point that my hon. Friend made about the way that the live animal export trade developed rapidly and expanded between 10 and 20 times in scale over a 10-year period is a salutary reminder of what some unscrupulous business people are willing to do in this industry. I urge the Government to think again about these probing amendments, which are wise and sensible and highlight some serious future risks as agriculture changes and develops. We would be wise to address that by looking at the species in the amendments and adding them to the Bill to ensure that those animals are protected in the same way as other animals. I urge Ministers to consider the thoughtful amendments tabled by Labour Front-Bench Members.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

I am pleased to speak in support of Labour’s amendments 2 to 5, particularly those regarding banning the live export of alpacas, llamas and deer, and ensuring that species can be added to the legislation at a later date. As the shadow Minister said, Labour supports the Bill, but the amendments would ensure that the legislation is future-proofed and fit for purpose.

The ending of the cruel trade in live exports for slaughter and fattening is long overdue. Millions of farmed animals are at risk of facing long journeys, which can cause mental exhaustion, physical injuries, hunger, dehydration and stress because, as we know, animal welfare can be compromised during long-distance live transport, which can include inappropriate stocking densities, inadequate ventilation and temperature control systems, and unsuitable feeding and watering facilities.

As has been mentioned, proposals to ban livestock exports were previously included in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, which was thrown out by the Government last May, but the public have been pressing for urgent action. A recent parliamentary petition calling for the UK Government to

“Find the time to take the Kept Animals Bill through Parliament and make it law”

was signed by more than 100,000 UK residents. My constituents across Luton, Caddington, Slip End and Hyde feel strongly about this issue, whether they are farmers who care deeply for the living standards of their livestock or consumers who expect to be able to buy ethically reared produce.

Labour has long called for a ban on live exports for slaughter and fattening from or through Great Britain. We recognise that it is important not only to pass the Bill but to table amendments to improve it as an important step in asserting our reputation as a nation of animal lovers prepared to act against any cruel treatment that they face. In fact, Labour has a track record of doing so in government, from ending the testing of cosmetic products on animals in 1998 to stopping the cruelty of fur farming in 2000, the introduction of the Hunting Act 2004, and bringing in the landmark Animal Welfare Act 2006. Unlike Labour with those actions, the Government have dithered and delayed somewhat, as has been mentioned by Members on both sides of the House. They delayed action on livestock exports and reneged on a manifesto promise to end, as was so eloquently put previously, the sickening import of hunting trophies.

I reiterate my support for amendments 2 to 5. I welcome the Bill’s ending of livestock exports and the fact that it will contribute to continuing on the path to improving animal welfare standards.

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill

Matt Rodda Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 18th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Jones]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention, but I am not sure that it is relevant to what we are talking about today. We introduced the Hunting Act 2004 and the landmark Animal Welfare Act 2006.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I particularly commend her point about foxhunting and the action taken by the last Labour Government to tackle that appalling activity. Does she agree with me that there is enormous interest in animal welfare, both around provisions set out in the Bill and wider aspects of the issue? Does she agree that the Government have spent a very long time on this but they have not yet delivered a comprehensive animal welfare Bill, despite previous attempts? Would she now like to see further action taken on that, and on many other matters?

[Ruth Jones]

My hon. Friend must have read my speech and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), because we certainly want people to go further and faster. As the Secretary of State has already said, it has taken seven or eight years to get to this point. Although we are clear that the Bill is only one step towards improving animal welfare, the Government have dithered, delayed and let down livestock, our pets and animals. There have been 13 and a half years of inaction, failure and disappointment.

The Tories have taken a weak approach to animal welfare, from pulling Bills to caving in to their Back Benchers. There has been little commitment to following through on their promises and pledges. I say to Government Members—well, to those who are here—we will take no lessons from this Conservative Government that recently ditched plans to end puppy farming and trophy hunting, among other examples of letting us down on animal welfare. We cannot forget the much missed Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, because that is where the Bill comes from. Back in May, the Conservative Government threw out the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill and instead decided to implement various measures separately, which is why we are here today.

The Tories’ track record on animal welfare has been nothing short of a disaster. They have shown themselves to be a party that cannot be trusted when it comes to protecting vulnerable animals, just as they have proven themselves to be a party that has no interest in helping vulnerable people. Will the Minister tell us where the ban on cages for farmed animals is? Where is the animal welfare labelling or the action to ensure that farmers from Newport West to Newcastle-under-Lyme, from High Peak to the highlands, are not undercut by low welfare imports?

In particular, where is the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill? My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) said:

“Hunting endangered animals is barbaric and must be confined to history. We must stop the selfish trophy hunters who want to slaughter then display endangered animals’ body parts for their own perverse self-gratification. The Conservative government must stop siding with these killers. If they refuse to act, they will be complicit in the slaughter as they break yet another pre-election promise.”

Does the Secretary of State agree with that and, if so, what will he do about it? If he does not agree, why not?

There is even more. Where is the action to stop puppy smuggling? Where is the plan to stop pet theft? When will we finally see a ban on the importation of dogs with cropped ears? Will we ever see a ban on snares? The Welsh Labour Government have banned snares and, thanks to pressure from the Labour party, the Scottish Government are planning to do the same, so why is Westminster still dithering and delaying?

Many of these promises were contained in the 2021 action plan for animals. Has the Minister read the action plan? If so, why has he abandoned so many of the promises contained in it? Making changes through private Members’ Bills is not leadership. If Ministers really want Tory Back Benchers to lead on animal welfare legislation, the Prime Minister could make one of them animal welfare Minister.

Water Companies: Executive Bonuses

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate in support of the motion. I will raise the issues in my constituency and the part of Thames Water that covers south-east England outside London. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for talking about many other issues affecting Thames Water. Their speeches relate more to customers in London, but they made some excellent general points about the company’s financing, the weak regulation and the Government’s failure to act, which I will also highlight.

Serious and persistent problems affect wildlife and thousands of residents in the Thames Valley, particularly Reading and Woodley. We have seen things in our area that are truly shocking and deeply concern many residents. I have run a community survey, which hundreds of people have filled in to raise their concerns. This is a widespread issue for many local residents, which differs slightly from those described further downstream in London but relates to the level of concern and the impact on local people.

I will go slightly upstream from Reading towards Oxford, where there has been a well-known series of incidents linked to pollution in the Wolvercote stream. All the sewage pollution further upstream of the Thames, from many tributaries in Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire, flows through Berkshire into London and, ultimately, out to the Thames estuary. Residents in my area are suffering the direct result of that pollution. The simply appalling levels of pollution are monitored by people in Oxford. I pay tribute to local campaigners there, including my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds). However, Thames Water does not seem to be fully addressing these matters. I hope that the company, the Government, the Environment Agency and the regulator are listening to the debate and will look into this further.

Of the issues affecting tributaries in our area—an important and environmentally very sensitive issue—is pollution in chalk streams. Very close to Reading, the River Pang tributary is a particularly beautiful chalk stream, which used to be in pristine condition. There is a beautiful landscape, with rolling hills on the edge of the downs in Berkshire and gentle footpaths next to the river. When I walked along there some time ago, I noticed that the riverbed had no apparent life in parts of it. Local anglers, many of whom live in Reading, have raised serious concerns about the Pang, and about other chalk streams across southern England. They are a unique ecosystem found only in the south of this country, where water comes up from the chalk aquifer into streams and flows into major rivers such as the Thames. I hope the Minister will take note of the specific issues affecting chalk streams. I would appreciate it if he or his colleague could write to me about them and the other specific issues in the Thames Valley and Thames catchment. I thank the Angling Trust for its excellent work on this matter.

Another appalling local issue is the long-standing pollution incident in a tributary called Foudry brook, which comes from a spring in the northern part of Hampshire and flows under the M4 motorway, through the outskirts of Reading, and ultimately into the Kennet and the Thames. I saw the pollution when I was running the Reading half-marathon this year. There were pools and little tributaries of water that smelled pungently, and were a lurid neon green colour that one would see in an artificial and lifeless place, completely out of place next to the willows and bushes near the river. It should never have happened, and clearly was linked to the pollution incident upstream a few miles away.

I hope that the Minister is noting the level of revulsion that people like me have exhibited when we have seen that. It is an offensive thing to see when trying to enjoy a walk next to a river or, like many thousands of local residents, when living near a river. People who live along several miles of banks of the Kennet, the Thames and the Loddon have to put up with sewage floating past their houses. There has been a series of other terrible incidents, and I could go on and on. Many are happening all the time and, as we heard earlier, they are not properly monitored.

On Saturday, on a family walk, I experienced yet another such incident. Imagine the scene: frosty countryside just outside Reading—absolutely beautiful—with heavy frost on hedges and wildlife in abundance, walking down the hill through a nature reserve to the River Thames. I could see a heron on the bank of the river spying for fish and there was a cormorant diving into the Thames. In the middle of the river was what I thought were either flecks of snow—it was very, very cold—or rain or leaves. In fact, they were bubbles from sewage pollution. I could see banks of foam building up around small islands in the river, sometimes nearly a foot high, with white, brown creamy foam which was clearly linked to sewage pollution. The river was very high and I could tell that the outlets had been opened upstream. It was absolutely disgusting. That is the type of pollution affecting people’s enjoyment of beautiful countryside, riverside walks, and their own gardens and homes in the south of England just upstream from London. I hope the Minister will note that and look into it.

I am aware of time and I do not want to overstep my limit. I commend the action plan put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed). I hope the Minister is listening and paying attention to what we are saying, because this is a very serious problem and I hope he will look at it again.

Funding for Canals

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Thursday 9th November 2023 Commons Chamber

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

What an absolute delight it was to listen to my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris), speak with such passion about the value of England’s waterways. It made me think about my nana, Nana Alice, one of the famous Robinsons from Kendal. In 1947 she would have been living just outside Kendal, at Brigsteer, and will certainly have known, and possibly travelled on, that canal, so it means something to me personally to see this project fulfilled.

Although I am not the Minister responsible for inland waterways, I am the Minister responsible for access in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Perhaps my hon. Friend would be so kind as to invite me along when he spends his day in the area? If my diary allows, I will certainly prioritise that but, if not, I will make another trip to visit the volunteers. It is the volunteers my hon. Friend described who are really making the most of the inland waterways, including through partnerships and working with local authorities.

May I take this opportunity to let the House know that we are introducing local nature recovery strategies across 48 upper-tier authorities? These will prioritise how those authorities can create more access, and that will be done in partnership with our legal commitment that everyone, wherever they live in England, will be able to access a blue or green space within a 15 minute walk.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. I do appreciate her help with this. I also wish to commend the hon. Gentleman’s work on this matter. From another corner of England, in my constituency of Reading and Woodley, we are very fond of the Kennet and Avon canal, which is a significant waterway. Sadly, some of the access has deteriorated a little in recent times and we have had some issues with the Environment Agency not removing sunken boats, and also problems with litter. Residents appreciate the ability to access waterways. They are a wonderful part of our heritage and are important to neighbourhoods. I thought the hon. Gentleman’s speech about his area was wonderful. Can the Minister advise me on how we can better work together on this important matter? I realise that the funding has unfortunately been cut, but there are partnerships in place. Perhaps she or a colleague could write to me to update me and my local council on some of the funds that are available.

[Trudy Harrison]

Certainly, and I will come on to just how much funding has been made available. I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the National Lottery Heritage Fund, which has provided £454 million recently to a couple of projects. Moreover, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, through levelling-up funding, has provided more than £33 million to another couple of projects. That is perhaps an area that my hon. Friend could also look into. I know very well that he has previously been incredibly successful in securing levelling-up funding. As a champion of the Morecambe Eden project, I understand that £50 billion has been raised through the levelling-up project in his area, so I am well aware of his capability in that field.

In response to the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), let me say that I would be delighted to look into funding opportunities, specifically around access. I will write to him about that, because I am not familiar with what might be available at this time.

On the wider funding for canals and inland waterways, we know—because my hon. Friend has just explained—how important these national heritage assets are, providing many public benefits. I am also fully aware of how important it is to have access to water and green spaces for our physical health and mental wellbeing, not to mention the benefits that they provide for nature. Those benefits are set out in our Environmental Improvement Plan. Halting the decline of nature by 2030 and increasing its abundance thereafter is the apex priority following the Environment Act 2023. Canals and waterways, rivers, lakes, coastal areas and streams are fundamental to that. People enjoy being by canals and waterways and using them for leisure and recreation, as well as, in the case of canals, for their historical value. They form an important part of our natural environment by providing the green corridors along which biodiversity can flourish, as well as contributing to the growth of local economies, such as through domestic tourism.

The Canal & River Trust reports that there were nearly 900 million visits to its canals last year, many of which were repeat visits—with around 10 million individual users each month. That gives us a real sense of the scale and popularity of our canals.

I pay tribute to the Canal & River Trust for the work that it does day in, day out to look after the network. Our navigation authorities have an important role to play into the future as well, because they will make sure that our nation’s key infrastructure is resilient to climate change. As we have set out in our national adaptation plan of how we will mitigate and adapt to the risks set out by Climate Change Committee, these waterways may suffer the consequences of climate change more than others.

Importantly, the work that the navigation authorities do will help us meet our net zero targets through sustainable transport and energy generation, and help to achieve water security through flood mitigation measures and water transfers.

I will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale with the specifics of any funding analysis that has been done. As I say, I am not the Minister responsible for inland waterways, but I will take the time to write a detailed analysis if I can. I may require further information from the volunteers and the partnerships that he mentioned.

The Canal & River Trust and the Environment Agency are the two bodies that receive direct funding, and it is important to be clear that we will continue to provide significant funding. The Canal & River Trust was set up in 2012 as a charity independent of Government. The idea was to replace the publicly owned British Waterways and free it from public spending constraints. The trust owns and manages a network of some 2,000 miles of canals and rivers in England and Wales. The original endowment in 2012 was £450 million, but it is now worth £1 billion. From 2027, £400 million is proposed to be granted over a 10-year period. We will continue to support the Canal & River Trust, but we certainly encourage it to work with others to make the most of the commercial opportunities as well.

Now that the trust is free of public sector financing constraints, it can source alternative revenue streams, including charitable donations and legacies, charity tax relief, third-party project funding and borrowing on the financial markets, while continuing to receive a substantial Government grant. The trust was also endowed by the Government with a significant property and investment portfolio from British Waterways. As I said, it was originally worth £450 million and is now worth over £1 billion. That is the result of sound investment management by the trust. To provide further support and financial certainty for the trust while it was becoming established, the Government agreed in 2012 to provide a 15-year grant of around £740 million.

An important part of the 2012 transfer from British Waterways was the memorandum of understanding signed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the trust, which contained a clear objective that the trust would progressively move towards greater self-sufficiency and reduced reliance on public funding, through its £1 billion property and investment portfolio and freedom from public sector financial constraints. Following a Government review of current grant funding that was announced in July this year, a further substantial grant funding package has been announced that will provide £400 million across the 10-year period from 2027. Importantly, that will bring the total amount of Government support for the trust to around £1.1 billion since 2012.

I also want to discuss the funding for the Environment Agency; as I mentioned, there are two bodies that look after the network of canals and rivers. The Environment Agency’s 630 miles of navigations are funded in the form of an annual grant in aid. For the three-year period from 2022-23 to 2024-25, that amounts to £73 million. I hope I have set out that this Government really have supported canals and rivers, whether through the Canal & River Trust or the Environment Agency, but that there are other ways in which those organisations can bring in additional funding, as we have heard.

To focus on the project that my hon. Friend is progressing, which is the most important thing, I cannot commend too highly the volunteers and their ambitions for their area. The project has such importance for the local community, because it will not only bring back something that was last used in 1947, but will bring benefits such as tackling climate change, improving people’s physical and mental wellbeing, and supporting biodiversity. That is absolutely what we should be doing. It supports the targets of the environmental improvement plan and the work of groups such as Sustrans, public rights of way and national trails. We all recognise the benefits of being near water and appreciating nature—and, goodness me, we all need to get a little bit more active.

I confirm that I will write to my hon. Friend with the detailed analysis of the funding for the project so far, and I will take a look at other funding streams as well. Most importantly, I look forward to visiting him, perhaps in Kendal, to congratulate the volunteers on their hard work and success to date. It is brilliant to end today’s sitting with some wonderful good news about a really successful big society mission.

Question put and agreed to.

Storm Babet: Flooding

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Monday 23rd October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the particular challenges that coastal areas face. We have launched a £200 million flood and coastal innovation programme to look at those issues in particular. I urge him to suggest that his own Cabinet looks at some similar projects. We are happy to share the detail.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

My sympathies are with all those affected by these terrible floods. Thousands of residents of Reading, Caversham and Woodley in my constituency live in areas that could be affected by catastrophic flooding, yet plans to build flood defences next to the River Thames in Reading have been delayed. Will the Minister write to me urgently with an update on this important issue, to reassure local residents and businesses?

[Rebecca Pow]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the water resources management plans are under discussion right now. Protections, reservoirs and water supplies will all be discussed within those plans. I cannot comment on what will be in the plans yet, but I am sure that he has fed into them. I urge him to continue to do so, because keeping people safe along this great river is of the utmost importance.

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals)

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Wednesday 21st June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Trudy Harrison]

I will just make some progress.

I will set out what has been achieved since 2010, with a wide range of valuable reforms that make a difference to animal welfare: implementing a revised welfare at slaughter regime and introducing CCTV in all slaughterhouses; banning traditional battery cages for laying hens and permitting beak trimming only by infrared technology; and raising standards for meat chickens. We have significantly enhanced companion animal welfare by revamping the local authority licencing regime for commercial pet services, including selling, dog breeding, boarding and animal displays.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)]

If there is one thing I know, it is that my constituents care passionately about animal welfare. My inbox is full of emails about the importance of this topic to them. The scrapping of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill and the prevarication on display today are, frankly, astonishing. I am baffled that Conservative Members cannot see how the withdrawal of the Bill makes constituents question whether this Government even care about delivering on their promises. As we have learned this week, trust matters to our constituents, and I know that my constituents care. They care about animal welfare and they care about the Government delivering on their pledges.

The dropping of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill also creates huge worries for zoos across the country, including Chester zoo in my constituency, which runs world-leading conservation research and work on animal welfare issues. It is very worried that, without this Bill, the uncertainty surrounding the legislative framework within which zoos operate will be perpetuated. This is causing it real difficulties in allocating the charity’s spending. It is, in effect, in limbo. The Government need to engage with the zoo sector quickly to bring forward the central aims of this important Bill.

Chester zoo is not the only way my area is leading on animal welfare issues. Cheshire West and Chester Council was one of the first to ban permanently the practice of trail hunting on council-owned land, and the National Trust soon followed suit. The changes introduced by the previous Labour Government have stood the test of time, from the bans on foxhunting and fur farming to the action taken to stop experimentation on great apes and the testing of cosmetics on animals.

[Matt Rodda]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I hope that today we can have an element of consensus and that the Government will reconsider their position. It seems strange, when the official Opposition are backing a Government Bill, to not want to progress that Bill for the benefit of animals.

[Samantha Dixon]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We must ensure that we do not stop here; we should lead the way on animal welfare. The belief in protecting animal welfare should not come and go depending on what is politically convenient or fashionable at the time—it should be a matter of principle and conviction. There is no need to go round the houses with this issue, introducing what appears to be a parliamentary pick-and-mix approach. We need urgently to go from A to B as simply and as quickly as possible. I will be voting to bring this Bill back, and I encourage Members across the House to do the same.