Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Steve Reed 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.

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

It is a pleasure to speak on what I consider to be a very important Bill. Not only is it important to many countryside lovers, but it has been very much supported by the National Farmers Union and the National Sheep Association, and it will play an important role in strengthening our legislation to deter livestock worrying. I must thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) for her dogged support for the legislation, and those on the shadow Benches for their support; I know the Bill is fully supported.

While I have a farming-linked remit within DEFRA, I am also the access Minister, and the legislation is important in terms of access to the countryside, as well because it will give added awareness to people who are going out with dogs. We are encouraging people into the countryside for many reasons—the health and wellbeing benefits and all that—but, as the shadow Minister mentioned, we need to raise awareness of the countryside code. Taking one’s dog out into the countryside is a wonderful thing, but respect and understanding must be given to the farming community and to all the responsibilities that lie therein for dog owners walking their dogs. This is important legislation and it will help.

I will speak briefly to the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal. She has listened very carefully to the comments in Committee, which is why she has tabled these amendments. They seem to make complete sense and I know they have had a great deal of support. She wants to be sure, as do others, that the courts have the appropriate discretion to impose a higher fine where it is warranted. The current maximum fine that might be imposed is a level 3 fine not exceeding £1,000; increasing the maximum fine to an unlimited amount would serve to provide an additional deterrent and help to reduce the likelihood of livestock worrying.

My hon. Friend for the Minister for Water and Rural Growth committed to supporting this amendment in Committee, and I reconfirm that support today. Just to clarify, as was mentioned in the Committee, the maximum fine available will be determined by this legislation and will not depend on the sentencing guidelines. Sentencing guidelines are developed by the independent Sentencing Council for England and Wales, in fulfilment of its statutory duty. As an independent body, the council decides its own priorities and work plan for reviewing guidelines to reflect any legislative changes.

A comment was made about dogs on leads, which I know was discussed in Committee. The 1953 Act does not make it mandatory for a dog to be kept on a lead around livestock, although a person does commit an offence under the Act if the dog attacks or worries livestock on agricultural land. I am pleased to say that the offence includes roads and paths nearby. However, there are often signs stipulating when to put a dog on a lead or where it would be helpful to do so, for example, if there is livestock in the field or in particular where there are cows with calves.

I personally would not go into a field where there were cows with calves, because a cow with a calf attacked me when I was a child, but that is a decision for people to make. If a dog owner keeps their dog on a lead, that can sometimes attract cattle to the dog, so the Committee’s view, which I support, was that, in certain specific circumstances, there is a risk to the owner of keeping the dog on a lead. I think my right hon. Friend agrees with that; perhaps she will add some comments shortly. For those reasons, the Bill is not proposing to go down that road. On that note, I urge all hon. Members to support the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

I do not think that I need to add to the comments that I made on Report. We think this is an important piece of legislation and we wish it well as it continues its progress through the other House with wholehearted support from both sides.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I call the Minister.

Agriculture

Steve Reed Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to have the chance to discuss the motion. The environmental land management scheme was meant to be the centrepiece of the Government’s farming policy—a new dawn for British agriculture post Brexit. Approving each annual transition should have been run of the mill, as farmers were eased into a new and better system. Labour agrees that we need a fairer system of payments based on the principle of public support for public goods. That is why we have not opposed the agricultural transition plan and will not oppose this instrument to set out the level of delinked payments. However, it is vital, as we discuss the regulations, that we look at the context in which they sit for farmers and the wider industry.

The truth is that, because of this Government, our farming communities are in crisis: 6,000 agricultural businesses have collapsed since 2017; tragically, farming now has the highest suicide rate of any sector in the UK economy; and, as we have heard, last week’s NFU survey showed that farmers’ confidence has hit record lows. Farming is a difficult business and times are hard—the recent flooding has caused real distress, destroyed crops and threatened livestock. But farming has been made much harder by a Government who do not value or back our farmers.

Under the Conservatives’ disastrous withdrawal deal, farmers have faced a mountain of red tape and higher costs at our borders, blocking the export of high-quality British produce. The Government’s failure to invest in home-grown clean energy has left farmers crippled by skyrocketing energy prices. They have sold farmers’ interests down the river with dodgy trade deals, opening the door to low-welfare, low-standard imports that undercut higher-quality British producers—a point made by a previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice). Even though we know how devastating flooding can be for rural businesses, this Conservative Government have left communities unprotected. This is a dereliction of duty by the Secretary of State.

That brings us to today’s motion. This Government have botched the implementation of the environmental land management schemes, threatening the basic financial support that has long been a lifeline for so many family farms. The transition from the common agricultural policy to ELMS has been shambolic, with hard-pressed farmers left to pick up the pieces. It has left many unable to plan properly and facing mounting bureaucracy and red tape. Some farmers, particularly those in uplands and those with smallholdings, have been abandoned to fend for themselves.

Such is the incompetence of this Government that they have failed to spend hundreds of millions of pounds of the support that was intended for farmers—money that would make a difference to struggling farmers today; funds that should be in farmers’ pockets now, not sitting in Government spreadsheets. Why are the Government not using that money—over £220 million of underspend—to offer help right now to farmers, who have been the people most affected by this dreadful flooding during the wettest 18 months since 1836? Belated plans for spending that money were announced with great fanfare by the Secretary of State in February, yet many months later it is still locked away in the Government’s coffers. Will the Minister agree to publish this week a plan for how he intends to distribute those funds urgently to farmers who desperately need that support right now?

The NFU is calling on the Government to pause the roll-out of ELMS so that they can distribute the underspend under the basic payment arrangements. I completely understand and sympathise with the NFU’s frustration, but it is not in anyone’s interests to delay ELMS; we should instead be looking to make it work better, and the Government should be going much faster to get that underspend out to the farmers who need it so desperately. To make ELMS work better, we need to understand how it is currently operating, yet the Government still refuse to publish their impact assessment of the scheme. I wonder whether the Secretary of State and the Ministers are afraid of the public reaction if they did publish it, because the scheme is failing. It is frankly astonishing that we are being asked today to wave through substantial changes with no data or proper assessment. Since the Minister has that information, can he please explain why he will not publish it?

Labour recognises that food security is national security, and unlike the Government, we value the critical role that our farmers play in the security of this nation. We also value the role that farmers play in protecting our great British countryside. This year’s wet weather is a further reminder of the importance of tackling climate change for the sake of our long-term security. Farmers want to play that vital role, but they need better backing from the Government: they need certainty, they need clarity, and they need to be able to plan.

The principles behind ELMS make sense, but the way the Government have run the scheme has been chaotic, and we can only assume that their refusal to publish the impact data is because they do not like what it says. It would be wrong to scrap or delay ELMS, which is why we will not oppose today’s motion, but it needs to be made to work far better, and farmers need the underspend today that the Secretary of State promised months ago but still has not delivered.

The Government cannot continue to sit by and do nothing as our farmers face this crisis. The Government risk trashing not only our countryside and our food security, but thousands more livelihoods up and down the country. The Government need to get the support they promised out of the door, come clean on ELMS impact data, and get the scheme back on track. Farmers and our countryside deserve much better, but they have been sorely let down by this Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Reed Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

The environmental regulator has today condemned the disgusting state of our waterways caused by the Conservatives letting water companies pump them full of raw sewage. This has to stop, so will the Government now back Labour’s plan and make water bosses personally criminally liable, so that if they keep illegally dumping sewage, they end up in the dock?

[Steve Barclay]

We already have the biggest ever prosecution by the Environment Agency, which is already live. We have also already banned bonuses for those companies guilty of serious pollution. We are quadrupling the number of inspections as part of that tougher enforcement scheme. We are also bringing record investment into the water industry. The hon. Gentleman never comments on the quality of water in Wales, but perhaps he will want to address that in his follow-up question.

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

Steve Reed Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th March 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on bringing forward this important private Member’s Bill. As we have heard from Members across the House, it is overdue. It is extremely welcome and it has cross-party support.

I congratulate Opposition colleagues who have participated. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon) said that we rarely talk about ferrets in this House, and that is true. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) reminded us—or told us for the first time if we did not know—that 2 April is National Ferret Day. I suspect not many of us knew that, and I hope she will get the ferret she seems to have set her heart on.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) asked very pertinent questions of the Minister, who will be responding shortly, about the risk of rabies from illegally imported ferrets and the great threat to biosecurity in this country, which we should all be very concerned about. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Simon Lightwood) talked about the absolute horrors of ear cropping—a mutilation that is often carried out without any anaesthetic at all, to the torment of the animal.

My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) talked about the cruelty of illegal puppy farming. My constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), talked about how, when going out to buy a new family pet, it can be difficult for families to identify a legitimate breeder, and how many people are concerned because that journey is so difficult. Families do not want to support the illegal importation and breeding of animals, but it is far too difficult to find out which animals have been bred legitimately and which have been subjected to abuse, including illegal breeding.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) raised his constituents’ concerns about the Government dropping the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill after two years of development, and he urged the Government to do more to focus on animal welfare in the time remaining before the general election, whenever it comes. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) talked about the importance of rescue cats.

We heard some fine speeches from Conservative Members, too. I will leave it to the Minister to go through them in detail, but the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) made an outstanding, incredibly persuasive speech, with insights clearly drawn from his great professional experience.

I successfully introduced a private Member’s Bill in 2018, so I know very well the perils and pitfalls of steering such legislation through Parliament, and I again pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Devon for her success in building such widespread support, as is clear from this debate, for the important measures she aims to bring into law.

My private Member’s Bill, which became the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Act 2018, also won support on both sides of the House, but six years later, very disappointingly, it has still not been brought fully into force. I hear what the hon. Lady says about the need to keep pushing and, if her Bill progresses, I urge her to keep pushing. I wish her more success than I have had with the current Minister for mental health, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), who does not seem interested in carrying out the wishes of this House, as expressed in the unanimous passage of my important Bill. Other Health Ministers have taken much more interest and have helped to push the legislation forward, so I hope she will reflect on why she has not followed the will of this House, as expressed in a free and democratic vote, by ensuring that the law comes fully into force as soon as possible.

Animal welfare is of the highest concern to the British public, as we have heard from both sides of the House. I make it clear that the Opposition are pleased to support the Bill. We believe its measures are long overdue, and it has been very interesting to hear the personal testimony of Members on both sides of the House. Members have spoken of their experience of owning and buying pets, and of wanting to make sure that the animals they buy have been well treated and properly bred.

Other Members have mentioned their pets, and it would be remiss of me not to mention mine. I had a rescue cat called Tigger, who we sadly lost after 18 years in 2010. I have more recently had two rescue cats, Smudge and Pixie. We sadly lost Smudge last year to kidney disease, but the House will be pleased to hear that Pixie is still alive and well. They both achieved a modicum of fame when I entered them into the Battersea Dogs & Cats Home competition to elect the “Purr Minister”, becoming the first cats to be jointly elected. This is a matter of great pride to our family, although not so much to my partner, who is now the only member of our household never to have been elected to anything.

Our ownership of companion pets gives us an insight into how pets can be an important part of a family. We have heard about the horrible abuses of declawing, cropped ears and docked tails. That cruelty is brought home all the more because so many of us have experienced owning and loving a companion pet ourselves, as have many members of the great British public, which is one of the reasons why people are so concerned about these issues.

Puppy and kitten smuggling is an absolutely horrific abuse and legislation is required to prevent it from happening. That is why we are so pleased the hon. Member for North Devon has brought forward her private Member’s Bill today. Cracking down on the illegal smuggling of dogs and puppies was a commitment that appeared in the 2019 Conservative party manifesto. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield said, it is hugely regrettable that the Government did not in the end fully pursue their own legislation—Government legislation—to meet that commitment. I fully understand, and I am sure the Minister will repeat this when he is on his feet, that they are supporting the private Member’s Bill today, but those of us familiar with Friday sittings and private Members’ Bills know how uncertain that route can be. It is all too easy for a lone Member who is hostile to the proposed legislation to use procedural tactics to block the Bill from proceeding, even in circumstances where the vast majority of Members are fully in support of it.

My private Member’s Bill was talked out by a Conservative Member, for instance, despite having almost universal cross-party support. I was immensely grateful to Government Whips who later found time for it to come back, but despite that strong support from the Government, the legislation has still not been fully commenced. So I repeat that there are real concerns about whether and how the Government pursue private Member’s Bills even when they are enacted, which is why we would have preferred to see this Bill brought through as Government legislation rather than being subject to the vagaries of Friday sittings and private Members’ Bills.

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the procedural issues of the private Member’s Bill process being a threat to a Bill getting all the way through. Does he agree that because many Bills have already got through Second Reading in this Session, there is going to be a pile up in Committee which will make it difficult to get this Bill through Committee in time to get it back for the Fridays that give priority to Report and remaining stages? That is also a concern, is it not?

[Steve Reed]

I am grateful for that intervention. Of course my right hon. Friend has experience herself of pursuing a private Member’s Bill through the House, and she is absolutely right. We have over 30 private Members’ Bills on the agenda just today, so it does look like we are going to have a big backlog, and we certainly need the Government to be prioritising Bills they want to support, and I hope we will hear from the Minister today that this Bill will secure Government support and will be a priority for getting Royal Assent and getting on to the statute book.

The Bill before us today started out as part of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill introduced by the Government in 2021. It contained measures to crack down on puppy and kitten smuggling but, regrettably and incomprehensibly to many campaigners—they voiced this articulately themselves—the Government abandoned that Bill. It is hard to understand why they did that given the strong public support for the measures contained and the fact that the Government control legislation as it moves through this House—they control the business of this House. The full Bill was a golden opportunity to improve the health and welfare of millions of animals. The proposals had very wide public support, and animal welfare charities had worked hard to help shape the Bill before the Government regrettably abandoned it.

Members on both sides of the House and many of our constituents—I am sure we have all had letters about this; I am not unique in this House in having had hundreds of emails about the Government abandoning the kept animals Bill—deeply regret that the Government chose to ditch such a significant and important piece of legislation. As a result of that decision, countless animals have suffered needless pain and distress through the unscrupulous practice of puppy and kitten smuggling and through the export of live animals for fattening and slaughter in countries where animal welfare standards are far lower than in this country.

As has been expressed many times this morning, there is real gratitude to the hon. Member for North Devon for her efforts to bring back important measures that were part of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, including those on puppy and kitten smuggling. The provisions that have been brought back today are important because there has recently been a shocking—indeed, a sickening—increase in the number of animals imported into the United Kingdom, with pitifully little attention paid to their welfare, either during transportation or, often, in how and where they were bred. The horrific reality is that the puppy trade has become a multimillion-pound transnational industry based on the abuse of living, sentient creatures and on the deception of well-meaning individuals who want to buy a family pet.

Two million puppies are sold every year in the UK alone. It is a trade with a total value of £3 billion. Battersea Dogs & Cats Home estimates that up to 50% of that trade is either illegal or unlicensed and takes place outside any oversight from regulation or enforcement. Half the animals involved originate outside the United Kingdom, often in completely unknown circumstances, with all the risk that that implies for low standards of animal welfare and animal health.

It is less well known that criminals who are involved in the illegal trade in puppies are often also engaged in other forms of cross-border crime. That includes drug dealing, money laundering and even people trafficking. The European Union’s “Strategy to tackle Organised Crime” recognises the illegal trade in companion animals in Europe as an ongoing concern with severe implications for human and animal welfare.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester pointed out that the Government’s decision to abandon the kept animals Bill delayed the much-needed clampdown on this vile and illegal trade. The delay has left criminals feeling emboldened during the intervening period. A recent report published by the charity Four Paws on the illegal puppy trade in the United Kingdom found that more than 30% of imported puppies were from Romania alone. That is simply unacceptable. How can it be that criminals have been able to bring so many vulnerable animals into this country from conditions over which there is little, if any, welfare or health supervision or control?

[Maria Eagle]

Does my hon. Friend agree that cracking down, with proper enforcement, and having tough penalties that are enforced is a way of not only tackling this vile trade, but getting the additional benefit of taking some serious criminals off our streets?

[Steve Reed]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Indeed, the prosecution and punishment of those responsible for any crime, let alone these particular vile and heinous crimes, is essential to deter others who want to profit from the same exploitation of animals and people that we see in this vile trade in puppy and kitten smuggling. Nobody wants to see that, but we could have had more focus on this, and sanctions, had the Government pursued the original legislation, rather than delaying it and then supporting it coming back—in part at least—as a private Member’s Bill.

The circumstances in which animals are bred are also changing. A growing number of puppies are bred not only in vast, industrial-scale puppy farms, but in sheds, repurposed smallholdings, urban tower blocks and warehouses. We have seen images of these poor, desperate creatures tied up, often left shivering in the freezing cold, in filthy cages, covered in their own excrement, and sometimes reduced to eating their own excrement. It is distressing beyond words to see any of these images and videos, so thank goodness we have this Bill before us today. But what a crying shame it is that the Government have done so little about this vile trade until now and then abandoned the original legislation that could have brought in measures far sooner to save countless defenceless animals from abuse by the most unscrupulous traders and criminal gangs.

The RSPCA is the world’s oldest and largest animal welfare charity, founded here in England in 1824. It has been at the forefront of raising public awareness and concern about puppy smuggling. I pay tribute to the RSPCA for its many years of campaigning on this and so many other animal welfare issues. The RSPCA has highlighted that many dogs smuggled into this country to be sold on the underground puppy market have long-term health problems, as well as behavioural issues because of their breeding and negative experiences early in life.

We are talking about puppies like Dobby, a 19-month-old French bulldog who was taken in by the RSPCA’s Mount Noddy animal centre in West Sussex. Dobby, who had been trafficked into the UK from Lithuania, was plagued with severe and painful health problems, which eventually required significant surgery. The RSPCA points out that importing sick puppies with zoonotic diseases into the UK not only poses a risk to public health, but can lead to the very sad outcome of the animal needing to be euthanised after enduring a short, wretched life of pain and suffering.

What about mutilation, which has been by hon. Members across the Chamber? Mutilation includes horrific acts of cruelty, such as tail docking, ear cropping and the declawing of cats. Ear cropping has been illegal for over 20 years in England and Wales—thank goodness—but the RSPCA reports a 1,243% increase in incidents of ear cropping in dogs between 2015 and 2021. That is such a staggering figure it is worth repeating—a 1,243% increase in incidents of ear cropping in dogs. How despicable! No wonder so many animal rights campaign groups have been pleading with the Government for so many years to bring forward measures to curb this cruel trade.

The RSPCA tells us that the current loopholes in the law that permit the importing of dogs with cropped ears offer a defence in court for those responsible for illegal ear cropping here in the United Kingdom. That helps them to avoid prosecution for abuses of dogs that were made illegal in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Dog lovers across the United Kingdom are desperate for this horrific practice to be stopped once and for all.

Kitten smuggling raises further welfare concerns that I suspect will distress Members across the House. Cats Protection is the UK’s largest cat welfare charity. It provides administrative support to the all-party parliamentary group on cats, which I was proud to co-chair for many years before I was appointed to the shadow Cabinet by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition. The charity has produced a most helpful briefing paper on the Bill before us. It notes that its 2023 survey found that 3% of cats purchased in the United Kingdom over the previous 12 months had been sourced from abroad. We have no idea what conditions those cats or kittens were subject to during travel, but the long journeys they are forced to endure can cause them significant pain, fear and distress. That is not something anyone would wish to impose on a beloved family pet, or indeed on any animal, where it can be avoided.

The Bill is an important opportunity to prevent so much needless suffering. The Bill will crack down on puppy and kitten smuggling by closing loopholes in the law that have been mercilessly exploited by dishonest and criminal commercial traders. The Bill reduces the number of animals that may enter Great Britain in a motor vehicle during a single non-commercial journey to five. That will help stop smugglers who pretend larger cargos of animals are their own pets, when in reality they are intended for sale in this country. For similar reasons, the Bill reduces the number of animals that can be brought into the country by means other than a motor vehicle to just three. That will be of huge benefit in reducing the level of kitten and puppy smuggling into the United Kingdom.

The RSCPA has found criminal gangs using routes like this to smuggle animals into the country. The gangs then hire short-let properties, such as Airbnbs, to trick buyers into believing their puppy or kitten comes from a good home and has been well cared for by the animal’s mother. The animal’s new owners are incredibly distressed when they find out that their new pet may have a serious illness, an infection or behavioural problems caused by being removed from its mother far too young. It can even cost the new owners thousands of pounds in vet bills as they try to care for their animal. Of course, in many cases, the animal dies.

[Sarah Champion]

On that point, I have had a constituent get in touch with me because they went to get a dog—they thought it was a legitimate one—but when they got it home they found it had many complications. However, the children had already bonded with it, so they ended up having to take out a loan to cover all the vets’ fees. Surely more needs to be done to prosecute those people who are causing so much cost to the pet owners, who are innocent victims.

[Steve Reed]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. Through that example, she makes the most compelling case for why the Bill is necessary and why it should be brought in as soon as possible. Families who go out to buy a family pet are aghast, appalled and distressed when they get home and find out that that animal is not the healthy, well cared-for pet they thought they were buying, but has been subject to abuse. The animal may have behavioural or health problems that cost them thousands of pounds. It is simply unfair.

The Bill gives the authorities in different parts of the United Kingdom—including those with devolved Governments—the power to prohibit or restrict the transport of dogs, cats or ferrets into the UK for the purpose of promoting the welfare of the imported animals, since that, too, has often been used as cover for the illegal importation of ill-treated or sick animals for sale as pets. The Bill requires regulations to be made covering England, Scotland and Wales to prohibit the importing of dogs or cats that are below the age of six months, are more than 42 days pregnant, or have been mutilated through declawing, ear cropping, tail docking or other such methods. These are extremely important measures that will give a significant boost to animal welfare.

There has been a huge increase in the importation of heavily pregnant dogs and cats, which have often been stolen from their loving owners in continental Europe and smuggled into the UK in the most appalling conditions. The criminal gangs’ intention is to sell the puppies or kittens as quickly as possible after they are born. They do not care that the animals may have been made sick by the conditions in which they were transported, or even if the animals are born prematurely as a result of trauma inflicted on the mother. It is purely and simply a criminal money-making operation that needs to be stopped as quickly as possible.

[Jane Stevenson]

I am one of the most passionate people about animal welfare in this place, and it is lovely to see some new converts on the Labour Benches discussing animal welfare—[Interruption.] And on the Labour Front Bench. However, I would also be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s thoughts on Labour’s determination to prevent single-sex spaces being discussed today, because that issue is also important to my constituents.

[Steve Reed]

I am very disappointed indeed that the hon. Member has attempted to politicise an important point. We are talking about the welfare of animals.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am afraid that there was a lot of noise, so I did not hear exactly what the hon. Lady said, but, for the sake of clarity, we are discussing this Bill and only this Bill.

[Steve Reed]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Labour Members consider animal welfare to be important, and it is important that the Opposition can make these points on the record so that we can influence the Bill and, if possible, strengthen it. We think that the Government have been slow to the point of negligence in bringing forward these proposals that will ensure the welfare of animals. I welcome these provisions, but few such measures have been introduced in recent years.

[Maria Eagle]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Bill is to be a success, it is important that there are enforcement and punishment measures? Will he press the Minister, as I did, to be clear in his response about what those are and how they will back up the measures in the Bill to ensure that we put a stop to these evil trades?

[Steve Reed]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making those points. I can see that the Minister was listening carefully to what she had to say, as I was. I look forward to his response.

Few measures introduced in recent years have as many parallel benefits for animal welfare, human beings and wider socioeconomic stability as this Bill. The third-party ban introduced in 2021 sought to address many animal welfare concerns about domestic breeding through tighter licensing obligations on breeders and a ban on third-party sales. However, it was full of loopholes, which allowed unscrupulous breeders to continue their activities with far too little change. The law proved so weak that not a single prosecution has taken place under it, and fresh legislation is urgently needed to close those loopholes and bring that abusive trade to an end.

If the United Kingdom is to maintain its position as a world leader in animal welfare, in the face of emerging threats and concerns, and in line with the wishes of the British public, this Bill must become law as quickly as possible. Puppy smuggling is a despicable criminal activity, which causes suffering to animals and heartache and financial cost to their owners. It helps to fund organised criminal enterprises, which exploit human beings as well as animals, and presents a significant threat of disease transmission, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood pointed out.

Labour is proud to support the Bill as it progresses through this House, and we will seek to make it stronger, just as we did with the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill before the Government abandoned it. It is of course regrettable that the Government have taken so long to act on these issues, and while I have congratulated the hon. Member for North Devon on her private Member’s Bill, it is disappointing that the Government chose not to include the measures in a Government Bill, which might have proved a more secure way of ensuring that the legislation was passed swiftly and intact.

Other animal welfare measures are being presented to this House as private Members’ Bills, instead of as Government legislation. The Pet Abduction Bill, introduced in December last year, is another example, and we should not forget about all the other animal welfare commitments made by this Government that appear to have disappeared into thin air.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with me about the mess that we have made of the XL Bully dog process, where we have ended up banning breeds of dogs, rather than actually regulating—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has not been here all morning, so perhaps he has not picked up that the Bill is narrow, and it does not include the subject that he has just raised. In this winding-up speech, it is necessary that we stick completely to the Bill. I know that he will understand.

[Steve Reed]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I think that he has made his point.

Looking at animal welfare, what about the Government’s promise to protect our hard-working farmers from low-welfare imports produced using methods that would be illegal if they were used here in the United Kingdom? The Government cannot claim to be interested in animal welfare if they sign trade deals that permit lower welfare standards for animals outside this country. It is not fair on the livestock involved, and it is certainly not fair on UK producers and British farmers. Simply put, the Government are wrong to ignore the interests of farmers, consumers’ expectations of higher animal welfare standards and the wellbeing of the affected animals in the decisions that they have taken.

Similarly, many campaigners are asking what has happened to the proposed consultation on banning cages for farmed animals. That was promised by the Government nearly three years ago in their action plan for animal welfare back in May 2021, but there has been no consultation and no ban. Members want to know why not. We were promised action on imports of fur and foie gras. The action plan for animals stated that the Government are committed to building a—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. When the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) intervened on the shadow Minister, I explained that we must stick to the narrow confines of this Bill. My ruling applied to the hon. Gentleman, so it obviously applies to the shadow Minister as well.

[Steve Reed]

I am very grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was merely countering the claim made by Members on the Government Benches that the Government have been promoting animal welfare, when in fact they have been doing the opposite. I was merely putting forward the Opposition’s case in response to the points that they have been able to make. The measures in this private Member’s Bill were originally included in the manifesto on which the Conservative party was elected, and it does the reputation of politicians across this House no good at all if a Government, once elected, simply ignore their manifesto.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Simon Lightwood) pointed out how proud he is that, when Labour was last in government, we implemented landmark animal welfare legislation, including banning cosmetic testing on animals, stopping fur farming and ending hunting with dogs. That is a proud track record on animal welfare, but the work has to continue, because there is still so much more to do. The measures in the private Member’s Bill before us are part of that. If our party earns the trust of the British people at the next general election, we will bring forward further and comprehensive legislation to strengthen animal welfare and animal rights.

In the meantime, we are proud to stand alongside the hon. Member for North Devon and the proposals that she has put before us today in her private Member’s Bill. They are sensible, humane and practical, and they deserve the full support of every Member right across this House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Reed Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

Last month, I visited Newcastle-under-Lyme with local campaigner Adam Jogee to meet residents who are literally choking on toxic fumes from the Walleys Quarry landfill site. More than 10,000 residents have complained about the stench, and a five-year-old child ended up in hospital. Will the Secretary of State publish all correspondence between DEFRA, the Environment Agency and the operator, so that residents in Newcastle-under-Lyme can see why the site has not been closed down?

[Steve Barclay]

No one could have done more to highlight the issue than the constituency MP. Indeed, the Minister with responsibility for water has already been to Walleys Quarry to look at first hand. Having spoken directly to the chief executive of the Environment Agency, I know that everything that can be done within the law is being done. That is the assurance that the Minister and I have had from the chief exec of the Environment Agency. Indeed, enforcement action was taken recently at that specific site.

Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Steve Reed Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 2nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on introducing the Bill. I am sorry about her throat, and I hope her voice recovers quickly. Livestock worrying causes havoc for farmers up and down the country. The vast majority of dogs are much-loved and good-natured family pets, but a small minority are not keep under control, allowing them to aggressively chase down, attack and, in some cases, kill livestock. Farmers are left to cope with the stress of injury to and death of their livestock.

There is rising concern in the farming community about dog attacks. This week, I visited the Oulton family farm in Audley, near Newcastle-under-Lyme. They told me how frequently they experience dogs chasing and attacking their livestock, only to be told by the owner that the dog does not normally behave like that. Another farmer I spoke to told me that, quite horrifically, someone had deliberately brought and set aggressive XL bully dogs on her sheep, but the police had not considered it serious enough to even turn up at the scene of such an appalling crime. That is quite clearly unacceptable. The NFU’s own data has found that attacks on farm animals have cost £1.8 million in the past year alone, as the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) pointed out. That is a staggering cost to farmers at a time when they face the perfect storm of excessively high energy bills and record-high levels of personal taxation.

The Bill makes important progress on improving police powers to crack down on livestock attacks. It is right to raise the penalties for livestock worrying and make the regulations clearer, but we also must use this opportunity to ensure that we educate responsible owners about better controlling their dogs when they are near livestock. As the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) said, pet owners and farmers care deeply about the welfare of their animals, and a big part of the solution to the problem must lie in raising awareness of the countryside code. It is vital that dog owners who live near or visit land on which livestock are being raised understand that, even without physical contact, sheep can die or miscarry as a result of the distress and exhaustion caused by a dog chase.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals concludes that most livestock worrying incidents are caused by unaccompanied dogs and, to a lesser degree, dogs being walked by their owners. Responsible dog owners can play a major part in solving the problem by ensuring that their dogs are kept on a lead and are adequately socialised and trained, so that their pet does not pose a risk to livestock. Owners must also ensure their property is secure to prevent dogs escaping from their homes and gardens. Farmers and livestock owners can take measures to ensure that there is visible signage in fields where livestock are present and to swiftly report any incidents to the local police. The police, of course, should be expected to respond promptly.

The Bill is a first step in preventing the harms that dogs can cause to livestock. Labour fully supports the Bill and will look to strengthen it, should it reach Committee and Report stages, to ensure that livestock are properly protected.

Storm Henk

Steve Reed Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.

Storm Henk has wreaked havoc across the country: thousands of homes are severely damaged, businesses have been devastated, and farms and crops have been destroyed. My heart goes out to all those affected. I join the Minister in thanking the emergency services, the Environment Agency, local authorities and volunteers for their response, working around the clock to keep people safe.

About 2,000 properties have been flooded to date and much of the country remains under water, yet the Prime Minister does not think it is serious enough to call a Cobra meeting. The Government’s failure to act effectively against the risk of floods has cost the economy billions of pounds since 2010. The Government estimate losses to be at £1.3 billion a year on average. With one in six homes now at risk of flooding, homeowners must be horrified that the Government have done little more than stare out of the window and watch the rain come down, with the previous Secretary of State blaming the fact that it came down from the wrong direction.

While we cannot stop the rain falling, we can and should do more to protect communities, businesses and farms from the devastation of flooding. Last October, the Environment Agency found that more than 4,000 English flood defences were rated “poor” or “very poor”, while the same agency was found to have underspent the budget that had been allocated to it by £310 million. That money should have been used to protect against flood damage.

I visited Retford in Nottinghamshire and met heartbroken families who had lost everything. That town was allocated £11.7 million for flood defences two years ago, but shockingly, less than half of 1% of that money has actually been spent. The Government have clearly failed to put in place the robust co-ordination between central Government and agencies on the ground to ensure that people are kept safe in these circumstances, and devastatingly, working families are left to pick up the pieces.

Labour has proposed a Cobra-style flood resilience taskforce to make sure that communities are protected. It would meet every winter ahead of the peak season for flooding to co-ordinate flood preparation between central Government and agencies and local authorities on the ground, identifying areas most at risk and making sure that allocated funding is used to build flood defences, dig out drainage systems, dredge rivers and put in place natural flood management schemes, such as planting more trees upstream to help the land hold more water.

Enough of this Government’s sticking-plaster politics: we need to get ahead of the problem, not just clean up afterwards. Communities deserve the reassurance that if the worst happens, there is a plan in place to keep people, their homes and their businesses safe, so will the Minister explain why the Government have still not fully mapped out which communities around the UK are most at risk from flooding, so that appropriate support can be put in place? Will he confirm how much of the funding allocated for flood defences remains unspent? When do the Government intend to upgrade flood defences that are found to be in poor and very poor condition? Will the Minister update the House on what conversations are taking place with insurers so that people whose homes are at risk from flooding remain able to insure them fully? Will the Government convene a Cobra meeting to ensure that Ministers are working across all Government Departments to keep people safe?

[Robbie Moore]

Let me pick up on the shadow spokesperson’s points about Cobra. I am absolutely right in saying that the Government held a Cobra unit Cabinet Office meeting last Tuesday to promote cross-sector preparedness action, way in advance of Storm Henk taking place, and cross-Government meetings, chaired by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as the lead Government Department for flooding, were held on many occasions last week and throughout the weekend. There has been daily contact between DEFRA and resilience partners across the Government, including the Cabinet Office and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and local resilience forums also had preparedness meetings and were prepared to convene strategic co-ordination groups to manage the local response. I know from my own visits last week and over the weekend just how quickly and efficiently the support has been rolling out.

I confirm to the House that since 2010 we have invested £6 billion to better protect 600,000 properties against flooding and coastal erosion. We are on track to spend £5.2 billion on flood defence schemes in the next six-year period—that is double the £2.6 billion previously allocated and it is better protecting more homes. Over the period of Storm Henk, 75,000 homes were better protected as a result of this Government’s infrastructure and the investment that we have put in place.

The Opposition refer to planting trees, but this Government go further. We recognise that planting trees is one part—a single part—of the solution, but we are going much further by doubling the amount of investment from £2.6 billion to £5.2 billion over the next spending review period. That includes £100 million to support communities that have experienced repeated flooding. The first 53 projects that are set to benefit were announced last April. Over the period of Storm Henk, we have seen the benefits of the work we did in 2022 to better protect Burton upon Trent, which had the highest water levels with the River Trent peaking. That is where our investment is working.

We are also taking swift action by rolling out the flood recovery fund, which will better protect households, businesses and farmers. That was announced this weekend and the eight chief executives of the local authorities it will benefit have already been written to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Reed Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

Animal welfare is an extremely important issue. That is why we introduced the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill in the King’s Speech. We were only able to do that because of our exit from the European Union. It is right that we put in place a ban to stop the export of livestock and horses for slaughter. My hon. Friend will also be aware of the two private Members’ Bills that are being taken forward to tackle the important issues of pet smuggling and pet theft, which I know are concerns to Members on both sides of the House.

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

I welcome the Secretary of State to his place. He will have seen the BBC “Panorama” investigation that exposed how this Conservative Government have turned a blind eye to corruption and cover-ups at the heart of the water industry. Consumers are left facing higher water bills, while water bosses profit from pollution. Will the Secretary of State now back Labour’s plan to let the regulator block any bonuses for water bosses who are responsible for the tidal wave of sewage pouring into our rivers?

[Steve Barclay]

We can go one better than that, in that we have already brought forward measures that allow the regulator, Ofwat, to take action, alongside tougher penalties, now with unlimited fines. In addition, all storm overflows will be monitored 100% by the end of this year, and there will be a much tougher approach on regulation, as the House heard in the strong response to the debate earlier this week.

Water Companies: Executive Bonuses

Steve Reed Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2023 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House regrets that 13 years of successive Conservative Governments have broken the water industry and its regulatory framework; is deeply concerned about the scale of the sewage crisis and the devastating impact it is having on the UK’s rivers, lakes and seas; believes it is indefensible that executives at UK water companies were paid over £14 million in bonuses between 2020 and 2021 despite inflicting significant environmental and human damage; condemns the Government for being too weak to tackle the crisis and hold water company bosses to account; calls on the Government to empower Ofwat to ban the payment of bonuses to water company executives whose companies are discharging significant levels of raw sewage into the UK’s seas and waterways; and further calls on the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to make a statement to this House by 31 January 2024 on the Government’s progress in implementing this ban.

I will continue, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Yes, otherwise that would be the shortest speech.

[Steve Reed]

I will not be that kind to you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Our beautiful waterways have been polluted by the highest level of illegal sewage discharges in our history under this Conservative Government. Last year, there was at least one spill every 2.5 minutes—and that is just the spills that we know about, because not every spill is properly reported. Over a year ago, Vaughan Lewis, an Environment Agency whistleblower, warned the Government about serious failures of regulation. He said that

“it was impossible for the Environment Agency to know what’s going on”

because the Government had

“ceded the control of monitoring to water companies, which ended up being able to mark their own homework. They take their own samples and assess whether they are being compliant.”

Now, we have more evidence that that is precisely what has been going on.

Last night, the BBC’s “Panorama” investigation exposed yet another scandal—exactly what that whistleblower warned about in August 2022, which has been ignored by four Conservative Environment Secretaries since. According to the “Panorama” team, leaked records show that United Utilities deliberately downgraded and misreported severe sewage leaks, including discharges into Lake Windermere, one of the most beautiful places in England. Of 931 reported water company pollution incidents in north-west England last year, the Environment Agency attended a paltry six. It is as clear as day that the water companies are covering up illegal sewage discharges. That is a national scandal.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Does he agree that the failure of the Conservatives to prevent illegal sewage leaks has led to a drastic increase in illegal discharges, which has affected our communities, damaged nature, damaged tourism, and put the health of kids and adults at risk?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

As always, my hon. Friend makes an important point very eloquently. I am sure that all our constituents up and down the country are appalled by what they have seen not just on “Panorama” last night, but when they have visited our beautiful waterways up and down the country. Raw human excrement polluting our waterways is not just disgusting; it destroys natural habitats, kills wildlife and damages tourism. Perhaps most appallingly of all, it makes people sick—children most of all—if they swallow parasitic bacteria and chemicals that should be nowhere near our rivers, lakes and seas.

How on earth did we get here? The Conservative Government cut the Environment Agency’s resources in half. That led to a dramatic reduction in monitoring, enforcement and prosecutions, leaving illegal sewage spills to double between 2016 and 2021.

[Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. Like me, he will have noted that the Minister is in her place. She was strangely missing yesterday for the Lib Dem amendment on compensation for those harmed by the criminal handling of sewage, though she was present in the Division Lobby just 15 minutes later. Does my hon. Friend think that she was allowed to abstain, or should she be sacked?

[Steve Reed]

It is hard to know whether discipline has broken down in the Conservative party; its Members seem able to rebel with impunity. When the Minister speaks, I am sure she will enlighten the House about what happened.

Instead of acting on the warnings, the Government have turned a blind eye to what has been going on. Thanks to this Government’s wilful negligence, we see record levels of toxic sewage swilling through our rivers and lakes, pouring into our seas and lapping on to our beaches.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I know that the hon. Gentleman would not want to make a partisan speech; he would want to make a balanced appraisal of the challenges, which we all regard with the seriousness that he has described. He mentioned beaches. Will he acknowledge that the proportion of bathing waters regarded as good or excellent has increased dramatically—from 76% to 93%, to be precise—since 2010, when his party was last in power?

[Steve Reed]

Heaven forfend that anyone would make a partisan speech in this place. I do not believe that the quality of water on our beaches is acceptable. Many campaign groups, such as Surfers Against Sewage, regularly point out the very low, even toxic, quality of the water that their families and they wish to enjoy. Many constituents of Members on both sides of the House will share those concerns. I hope that this debate is a time for us to come together to collectively identify the problems and move forward with proposals to tackle them. The right hon. Member, just like me and Members from all parts of the House, will share the concern that our once pristine waterways have been polluted by stinking, toxic filth. However, I hold the sewage party opposite responsible. The Prime Minister would not put up with raw sewage in his private swimming pool, so why is he happy to treat the British countryside as an open sewer?

[Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)]

Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that when Labour was last in power, it produced a draft Flood and Water Management Bill in 2009 that aimed to reduce red tape and other burdens on water and sewerage companies. The uproar at the time forced the Labour Government to change their mind. This Government have tightened regulations and made water companies start paying for the pollution.

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Member can be as much as of an apologist as she likes for the filthy, toxic sewage swilling through our rivers, but her constituents will hear what she says, contrast it with what they see and draw their own conclusions when the election comes, I am sure.

Whistleblowers and leaked documents give us a very clear explanation of why the water companies are behaving in the way they are. If they downgrade and cover up sewage spills, they are rewarded with permission to increase their customers’ bills, which boosts their profits. Fewer reported spills—not actual, but reported—and more profits mean bigger bonuses for the water bosses. Profiteering from covering up lawbreaking is corruption—corruption to which this Conservative Government have turned a blind eye.

Labour will crack down on rogue water companies and strengthen regulation to clean up our waterways. We will place the water companies under special measures. As a first step, Labour will ban self-monitoring by water companies. Instead, we will require water companies to install remote monitors on every outlet, with the result overseen by regulators. That way, we will know exactly what is being discharged into our waterways. Any illegal spill will be met with an immediate and severe fine—no more delays, no more appeals, and no more lenient fines that are cheaper than investing to upgrade crumbling infrastructure. Rogue water bosses who oversee repeated, severe and illegal sewage discharges will face personal criminal liability. And we will stop the Conservatives’ disgraceful collusion in this national scandal by reinstating the principle that the polluter pays.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

I welcome those strong interventions and regulations. One of the companies the shadow Minister is referring to is United Utilities, which made 27 sewage dumps—nearly 3,000 hours of sewage—in my constituency last year. Those are only the 27 that we know about. We need strong intervention and we need to get the referee on the pitch. Ironically, United Utilities is putting bills up by £110, so I welcome those measures.

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend rightly expresses the anger his constituents feel. Their bills are going up to pay bonuses to water bosses who have allowed this situation to continue to deteriorate. As I said earlier, there is a proposal in the motion, which I hope Members of all parties might consider supporting, to deal with the situation and demonstrate to the chiefs of those organisations which are responsible for the sewage outpours that Parliament and the people of this country will not continue to accept what they are doing.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman outlines very effectively all the failings of the water companies and of this Conservative Government to take action. Thames Water has been dumping billions of litres of raw sewage in the River Thames and there are hundreds of millions of litres of water leaks every single day. That has undermined trust in water companies among bill payers and our constituents. Does he agree with me that, when they have extremely controversial proposals in my constituency and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) to take water out of the river and replace it with treated sewage, there is a huge amount of distrust? Given the construction impacts they will cause in the area and the potential environmental impact on the river, how can people trust them when they give assurances about the safety of such schemes?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Lady makes a very important point very eloquently. She is a tireless campaigner on these issues and I am sure that many people who care about the state of our rivers will be grateful to her for leading on that work.

I am sure all Members will be concerned about this point as well. Despite some of the highest levels of illegal sewage discharges in history, water bosses awarded themselves nearly £14 million in bonuses between 2021-22. At the same time, they were planning to increase average household bills by £156. All that was signed off by a broken regulator and Conservative Ministers. That is an absolute abuse of consumers and Labour will stop it. Labour will give the water regulator the power to ban bonuses for water bosses until they have cleaned up their toxic filth.

The Conservative dogma that regulation is anti-business is economically illiterate. Fair regulation applied across a sector is pro-business and pro-growth, as well as being pro-nature in this instance. Businesses want certainty and predictability. If they are left to compete against others who undercut regulation and get away with it, we end up with a race to the bottom. Good businesses and investors need and deserve a level playing field, but this Conservative Government have distorted that. A regulator that is too weak to regulate leads to weak self-monitoring, cover-ups, financial corruption, and our waterways awash with stinking sewage.

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

I have been here for quite a long time, and the situation has been the same for the 23 years for which I have been a Member. I accept that things have got worse. What I suspect we need to do is take the main board of each water company and hold them accountable. South West Water, for instance, which serves Devon and Cornwall and the edge of the Minister’s constituency of Taunton Deane, covers up by using a sub-board which runs the company. It is the main board with which we should deal, and the same goes for Wessex Water and every other company that we need to go after. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that action must be taken, although the situation including bonuses has been the same for the past 23 years.

[Steve Reed]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s recognition that the situation is indeed getting worse. That should stimulate all of us to find ways of taking action to protect water quality for all our constituents, who really do deserve better.

I was talking about uncertainty in the regulatory field. The current level of uncertainty does not attract much-needed investment in our water industry; on the contrary, it deters it.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the impact he is making on an important issue that affects almost every community in the country. I am glad that he has taken such a robust line on the regulator, because it is the elephant in the room. We have focused our fire on the Government because they have failed and on the water companies because they have taken money and failed, but the regulators have failed as well, because it was on their watch that this has been allowed to happen. In the midst of all that, it cannot be right for consumers to end up paying twice, first for the dividends that have already gone out of the door and then for putting the system right.

[Steve Reed]

I am grateful for the work that my hon. Friend has led in exposing some of the same problems as my predecessor in this post. He clearly knows an awful lot about these issues, and he makes his point very well.

Let me move on to the broader issue of nature. The destruction of nature that this Government have encouraged is unacceptable. As a party, they increasingly position themselves against nature. On their watch, we now have one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, yet they have rowed back on their net zero commitments. They have broken their promise to fund farmers fairly to maintain environmental schemes on their land; they have tried to weaken environmental standards relating to nutrient neutrality to allow building alongside estuaries where the increased pollution would tip habitats beyond the point of recovery while refusing to build where the environmental impact could more easily be mitigated; and now they are turning a blind eye while our rivers are turned into sewers.

Economic growth does not have to stand in opposition to protecting and restoring nature. The two must go hand in hand. Labour’s mission to make this country a clean energy superpower will create thousands of good, well-paid, secure jobs, and part of it is a national mission to restore nature, including our polluted waterways. It seems that the longer the Tories are in power, the more nature suffers. They have little concept of the pride that the British people take in our countryside, of its importance to our sense of who we are as a nation and to our sense of belonging.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Were the British people not told by Minister after Minister in this Government that environmental standards would be enhanced and improved as a result of Brexit, and have they not been betrayed again by this shabby Administration?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend makes an accurate observation. People were promised one thing but the Government then tried to do the opposite.

[Sir John Hayes]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s passion for wildlife. We need a diverse countryside of the kind that he describes and I make the case, as he does, for hedgerows, trees and so on. Among the things that blight the countryside, however, are onshore wind turbines, which kill bats and birds and which are anchored by hundreds of thousands of tonnes of concrete, and widespread onshore solar, which eats up agricultural land and turns the countryside into an industrial place. Would he oppose those things?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

The right hon. Gentleman’s intervention started off well but it tailed off towards the end. If we can shift to a reliance on clean energy rather than on fossil fuels, we will support, enhance, protect and conserve nature, which is what we should all be seeking to do.

There can be no more graphic a metaphor for 14 years of Conservative failure than the human excrement now swilling through our waterways—the visible desecration of our countryside and the toxic legacy of Tory rule. It has often been the case in history that Labour has had to clean up the Tories’ mess, but rarely quite so literally. It is time to turn the page on 14 years of decline and to embrace a decade of national renewal with nature at its heart. That is why Labour has a plan to clean up our waterways by ending self-monitoring; introducing severe and automatic fines for illegal sewage dumping; criminal liability for water bosses who repeatedly and severely break the law; and no more bonuses for water bosses who profit from pollution. Conservative Ministers have sewage on their hands. This debate—and the vote that I hope follows—is a chance for them to show whose side they are on: the water companies or clean water. If they refuse, the next Labour Government will clean up their mess and restore pride in our rivers, our lakes and our seas.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Reed Excerpts

Thursday 19th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

Last year, this Government oversaw record levels of illegal sewage discharges into our rivers and waterways after they cut enforcement, and then they let the water bosses reward themselves for that failure with nearly £10 million in bonuses while hiking bills for consumers. Labour believes that the polluter, and not the consumer, should pay. Will the Government adopt Labour’s plan and give the regulator the power it needs to block water bosses’ bonuses if they keep illegally pumping toxic filth into our rivers?

[Rebecca Pow]

I have already said that Labour has not costed its plan, which has no credibility whatsoever. We have already changed regulation and the tools that Ofwat and the EA can use. No dividends or bonuses can be paid out at all if there is any environmental damage, and there are more fines than ever before. There were no fines under the Labour Government; indeed, they were taken to court by the European Commission for polluting water, and they did nothing about it. This Government introduced the monitoring, and that is why we know what is happening and why we have the biggest criminal investigation in the history of water under way.