Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Good morning, everyone. I will highlight two key points about new clause 28, which concerns what happens when companies that have gone into special administration come out of it. Subsection (1) refers to considering

“the merits of changing the law to provide that a water company exiting a special administration regime becomes a company mutually owned by its customers.”

Subsection (2) states that that would involving considering

“the general merits of mutual ownership of water companies in such circumstances, and…what model of mutual ownership would be most suitable.”

We are not saying that companies have to be this or that; we are just advocating considering this possibility. Private companies have made an absolute mess of our water sector, have added no value over the past 36 years and have ramped up nearly £70 billion of debt. When the companies come out of special administration, we have an opportunity to do something different and not to repeat the mistakes of the past. I want the Committee to take that on board. We are not asking for a commitment; we are just asking for consideration. Hon. Members all know how badly the private companies have treated us, our rivers and our communities.

These companies are monopolies, so they have absolute power. Unfortunately, our regulators have completely failed in their task. If they have failed in the task, and if we do not have absolute confidence in the regulators—I do not think that anybody who will be voting today does—we must not give water back to the private sector.

Globally, this is standard. It is what the rest of the world does with its water sector. Even in the US, the vast majority of the water sector is mutually or municipally held. Chile may be the one shining example of private capitalism that we can point to in this regard, but there are almost no other countries in the world that do as we do. We are asking the Committee to do what is standard, rather than what is unusual.

The Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), has written about the benefits of the mutual ownership model, which he states forces water companies

“to operate in the interests of consumers; where environmental considerations such as disposal of sewage would take precedence over profit.”

That is our request. I rest my case.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

For several decades, the water companies have been able to profit from failure. There is a strong groundswell of opinion among the public, across political persuasions, that real action must be taken and that if there has been real failure, water companies must not just be allowed to carry on operating in the private sector. I welcome the hon. Member’s amendment; mutual ownership is clearly one alternative model. Does he agree that full public ownership is another option that should be investigated in these circumstances?

[Charlie Maynard]

What I really like about our proposal is that the companies are coming out of special administration, so it does not cost anybody anything: the equity of the shareholders has been written off. We often hear that it would not be a good idea, because it would cost too much to buy the companies out. Under our proposal, we would not need to buy them out, because we are advocating this only where companies are going into special administration. We are advocating a mutual model and—I say respectfully to the hon. Member—only that. That is what is on the table today, and that is what we are after.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

Yes. We have ruled out nationalisation, but all other forms of ownership are in the scope of the Cunliffe review. I stress, however, that in a scenario in which a company was exiting special administration, it could go into mutual ownership if the organisation in question had sufficient funds and could ensure that the company, or parts of it, could continue to properly carry out its activities related to water. Of course, no one would want, in any situation, to transfer to a company incapable of operating and providing water.

It is important to emphasise that it would not be appropriate for the Government to dictate the terms of exit from a SAR, as that would interfere with the conduct of the court-appointed administrator and their statutory objectives.

[Adrian Ramsay]

I thank the Minister for the helpful clarification that the Cunliffe review will consider ownership models, including those that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale has advocated. Will the Minister clarify why the Government are not permitting the Cunliffe review to consider full public ownership as one of the options? Why would they not allow an open assessment of all the potential options, especially given that, as we have heard, public ownership is so common in countries around the world for what is a natural monopoly?

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Maynard]

The point about “relevant time” is fair and deserves to be clarified. I completely agree on the issue of statutory consultees and have no issue with that either—that would make much more sense, because there is a real failure in that regard.

I will go a step further—I have lived experience in this regard—and give a special shout-out to Thames Water employee Richard Aylard, who for two years dutifully showed up every six weeks with West Oxfordshire district council to hash through these issues. I learned a lot from him and am grateful to him, as well as to Jake Morley, Lidia Arciszewska, Phil Martin, Laurence King, Alaric Smith and Alistair Wray. They sat through all that, and we all learned together. It is important that everybody knows what came out of those meetings. When sewage treatment works’ capacity is calculated—they are very much under-capacity in my patch and, I am sure, in those of other hon. Members—there are four criteria. The first is the population or population equivalent, which is normally optimistically understated. The second is per capita consumption. Thames Water has a high per capita consumption when it suits the company and a low per capita consumption when it suits the company, so again that is understated.

The third is the Environment Agency multiplier, which is typically 3.0, and is discounted far too often. When there is a known record of spills, Thames Water is still allowed to discount the EA multiplier, often from 3.0 down to 2.4; that is a 20% cut, which means that the capacity can be 20% less. That is a real problem, and it is being done repeatedly on sewage treatment works that have dumped sewage left, right and centre for years.

The fourth criterion is infiltration. Some 47% of the capacity of west Oxfordshire’s big nine sewage treatment works comes from infiltration. That means that our pipes are leaking. There is not enough science on this matter. If we were to put in flow meters, we would have the information, but it seems that we Lib Dems are the only team in the room, alongside the hon. Member for Waveney Valley, that advocates flow meters. If we want to solve these problems, we have to get serious about the information.

[Adrian Ramsay]

I thank the hon. Member for the new clause. We all recognise the situation he describes. In East Anglia, planned housing growth over the coming decades outpaces available water resources. In my constituency, we already have a water resource zone in Hartismere where business operations and planned business growth are being restricted by the water available. He is addressing some of the important points about water companies’ being able to take responsibility, but do we not also need a joined-up approach? The planning system must be used to address the issues by means of stricter water efficiency requirements, sustainable drainage systems and housing plans that are realistic given the available natural resources. Is there not a problem with just putting the ball in the water companies’ court, rather than taking a more joined-up approach?

Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Tim Farron]

I am happy to accept many of the assurances that the Minister gave, particularly on the role of Government amendment 5—I learn something new every day. The Liberal Democrats retain concerns about the delay in implementation of some of the good things in the Bill. All the same, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 5, in clause 15, page 22, line 40, leave out subsection (11).—(Emma Hardy.)

This amendment reverses the “privilege amendment” made in the Lords.

Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Special administration for breach of environmental and other obligations

“(1) Section 24 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (special administration orders made on special petitions) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (2)(a) insert—

“(aa) that there have been failures resulting in enforcement action from the Authority or the Environment Agency on three or more occasions to—

(i) maintain efficient and economical water supply,

(ii) improve mains for the flow of clean water,

(iii) provide sewerage systems that are effectually drained,

(iv) comply with the terms of its licence, or

(v) abide by anti-pollution duties in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Water Resources Act 1991, or the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 (SI 2016/1154);”

(3) After subsection (2) insert—

“(2A) In support of an application made by virtue of subsection (1)(a) in relation to subsection (2)(aa), the Secretary of State must compile and present to the High Court records of—

(a) water pipe leaks,

(b) sewage spilled into waterways, bathing waters, and private properties, and

(c) falling below international standards of effective water management.”—(Adrian Ramsay.)

This new clause aims to require the Secretary of State to place a water company into special administration arrangements if they breach certain environmental or other conditions.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

New clause 31—Special administration orders: credit ratings—

“(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows

(2) In section 24 (special administration orders made on special petitions)—

(a) after subsection (1A) insert—

“(1B) Where a company which is a qualifying water supply licensee or qualifying sewerage licensee—

(a) is required, as a condition of its licence, to maintain two Issuer Credit Ratings which are Investment Grade Ratings from two different Credit Rating Agencies, and

(b) fails to comply with that requirement,

the Secretary of State must make an application to the High Court by petition under this section.”, and

(b) in subsection (2), after (c) insert—

“(ca) that the company—

(i) is required, as a condition of its licence, to maintain two Issuer Credit Ratings which are Investment Grade Ratings from two different Credit Rating Agencies, and

(ii) has failed to comply with that requirement”.”

[Adrian Ramsay]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I reiterate my apologies for not being able to be present at the Committee last week due to illness. I am pleased to be here today to speak to new clause 1, which would clarify that water companies may be subject to special administration measures should companies be guilty of significant and sustained environmental breaches.

I commend the commitments the Minister made during last Thursday’s sitting that the legislation will have a meaningful impact to ensure that water companies deliver for customers and for the environment. That echoes the Secretary of State’s pledge to the House in December to bring to the water sector

“reform that puts customers and the environment first.”—[Official Report, 16 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 78.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I emphasise to Committee members that special administration is the ultimate regulatory enforcement tool; as such, the bar is set high.

To respond to new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Waveney Valley, and new clause 31, tabled by the hon. Members for Witney and for Westmorland and Lonsdale, a water company can already be placed into special administration on performance grounds where it is, or is likely to be, in serious breach of its principal statutory duties or an enforcement order—in other words, where it is inappropriate for the company to retain its licence—as set out in section 24 of the Water Industry Act 1991.

The Secretary of State and Ofwat will consider all aspects of a company’s performance and enforcement record, including environmental and financial performance, when considering whether to pursue an SAR on performance grounds. Licence breaches, such as the loss of an investment-grade credit rating, are considered as part of that holistic review of a company’s performance. Ofwat will consider the circumstances around any loss of an investment-grade credit rating to identify the actions that the company must take to address associated licence breaches.

Regulators have a range of enforcement mechanisms to ensure the delivery of performance, including environmental performance. Water companies can also be required to make clear plans to address failures. I gently point out that this Bill does an awful lot to give more powers to address environmental performance. As we have discussed, our pollution reduction implementation plans address some problems relating to pollution.

Special administration must be a last resort, as it has significant consequences for a company’s investors. If special administration could be triggered without allowing a company to rectify performance issues and licence breaches, investors would have low confidence and would not provide the necessary funding. That could create instability in the market, potentially affecting the entire sector.

Although we recognise the concern behind these new clauses and others tabled by the hon. Gentlemen that highlight concerns that the system is not working, they address the symptoms rather than the underlying causes. In October 2024, the Government announced an independent commission that would be the largest review of the water sector since privatisation. That commission has a broad scope and will consult experts in areas such as the environment, public health, engineering, customers, investors and economics.

The governance of companies and regulatory measures to support financial resilience will be covered, including the operation of existing tools, such as the special administration regime. The review will report by quarter two in 2025. The UK and the Welsh Governments will respond and consult on proposals they intend to take forward. We expect those to form the basis of future legislation to tackle the systematic issues to transform the water sector fundamentally. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member is content to withdraw the proposed new clause.

[Adrian Ramsay]

I thank the Minister for her response. I appreciate that special administration would only happen in extreme cases. We have, however, repeated failures and neglect, including on environmental performance, from a number of water companies. That is why I wanted to make the provision explicit in the Bill that environmental neglect could be a reason for special administration. I take her point that there are reviews and wider plans underway. Although I am happy not to push this to a vote at this stage, I will take a close interest in how the situation progresses. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

Establishment of Water Restoration Fund

(1) The Secretary of State must, within 60 days of the passing of this Act, make provision for the establishment, operation and management of a Water Restoration Fund.

(2) A Water Restoration Fund is a fund—

(a) into which any monetary penalties imposed on water companies for specified offences must be paid, and

(b) out of which payments must be made for expenditure on measures—

(i) to help water bodies, including chalk streams, achieve good ecological status, and improve ecological potential and chemical status;

(ii) to prevent further deterioration of the ecological status, ecological potential or chemical status of water bodies, including chalk streams;

(iii) to enable water-dependent habitats to return to, or remain at, favourable condition;

(iv) to restore other water-dependent habitats and species, especially where action supports restoration of associated protected sites or water bodies.

(3) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, list the specified offences for the purposes of this section, which must include—

(a) any relevant provisions of the Water Resources Act 1991, including—

(i) section 24(4) (unlicensed abstraction or related works or contravening abstraction licence);

(ii) section 25(2) (unlicensed impounding works or contravening impounding licence);

(iii) section 25C(1) (contravening abstraction or impounding enforcement notice);

(iv) section 80 (contravening drought order or permit);

(v) section 201(3) (contravening water resources information notice);

(b) any relevant regulations under section 2 of the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 (regulation of polluting activities etc) related to water pollution;

(c) regulations under section 61 of the Water Act 2014 (regulation of water resources etc).

(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(5) The provisions in this section replace any existing provision for the sums received for specified offences, including in section 22A(9) of the Water Industry Act 1991 (penalties).—(Dr Hudson.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Hudson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The proposed new clause would introduce a legal requirement that money collected from water companies from financial penalties imposed by the Bill are legally required to be used by the water restoration fund. As with much of the Bill, the Government intend to build on the work begun by the previous Conservative Government. The water restoration fund is one pillar of that record that the Government would do well to advance. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what they plan to do with that excellent fund, which needs to be reinstated and progressed.

I have personally championed the water restoration fund, not only in my present role as shadow DEFRA Minister, but before that as a member of the Conservative Environment Network. I pay tribute to that body for its successful campaigning, which in led no small part to the previous Conservative Government introducing the excellent water restoration fund. In 2022, I was proud to sign the Conservative Environment Network’s “Changing course: a manifesto for our rivers, seas and waterways”. That was its first public declaration, setting out the ambition to introduce this policy recommendation.

In addition to the Conservative Environment Network, I would like to namecheck and thank the good folk of Wildlife and Countryside Link for their support and campaigning for the fund and this proposed new clause. I also pay tribute to the Angling Trust for the discussion we had on this matter, and give a big shout-out to our former colleague Philip Dunne, who was respected across the House. The former MP for Ludlow and Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee made assiduous efforts to see this fund introduced, as well as wider measures to protect our precious waterways.

As we have discussed with the Minister, there is considerable consensus on what we can do collectively and on a cross-party basis to protect and nurture our watercourses and waterways. I hope the Government will take forward and continue the water restoration fund because it is pivotal to what we are trying to do.

Flood Preparedness: Norfolk

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

Thank you, Sir Christopher. I hope that other hon. Members understand the need to prioritise Norfolk Members in this debate on Norfolk flooding, though I know we share concerns about the issues. I will try to summarise my remarks.

I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this crucial debate and for highlighting the underlying issues to be tackled, including maintenance and understanding the climate risks and the reasons for these problems. I also thank the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) for his comments; I look forward to the first Norfolk flood summit.

Like other hon. Members, I have countless examples in my constituency. On Mill Lane in Needham village and in Shelfanger and Winfarthing, residents have been significantly affected by flooding in recent years; some have been unable to return to their home since Storm Babet. There were 14 homes badly flooded in a single night, which highlights the extreme impact. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) will be pleased to hear that I also have examples from the Suffolk part of my constituency, because we need to ensure that we look at the issue region-wide.

To expand on other Members’ contributions, I will focus on nature-based solutions, which have a big part to play in addressing the issue upstream. Slowing down, capturing and storing rainwater brings additional benefits, improving biodiversity, sequestering carbon, enhancing soil life and creating valuable wildlife habitats.

The River Waveney Trust in my constituency is doing fantastic work on projects in places such as Diss and Gissing. It is using funding from DEFRA to carry out work that restores floodplains, plants trees, creates ponds and installs leaky dams. Such things are having a practical impact in reducing flooding and flood risks, but at the moment those works are often carried out by excellent but small charities fighting over pots of money that are not big enough. The DEFRA funding of £25 million needs to be much bigger if we are to tackle the problem at scale across the country. I know that the Minister is committed to addressing the issues and is listening, so I am looking for more funding.

I highlight my private Member’s Bill, the Nature-based Solutions (Water and Flooding) Bill, which would require public bodies and water companies to allocate at least 10% to 25% of their budgets to nature-friendly management schemes, ensuring more widespread adoption of nature-based solutions. I hope that the Minister will consider it among the reforms that are being looked at, and that it will get some support from colleagues in Norfolk and beyond.

To ensure that others can speak, I will conclude. I hope that the wide-ranging concerns that have been raised today are taken seriously, that adequate funding is put in place, that we ensure that there are joined-up solutions to addressing maintenance, that there is no more buck-passing, and that nature-based solutions get proper focus and attention.

Independent Water Commission

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend represents an incredibly beautiful part of the country in the Gower, and her constituents and the many people who visit those beauty spots will want to know that their children can enjoy the water without risk of contamination from polluted water. Of course I congratulate Surfers Against Sewage and the many campaigners who have pushed for reform. They will be invited to participate in the work of the commission—they have huge expertise. I hope that, before long, her constituents who are testing the quality of the water will start to see improvements until it is pure and crystal clear, as it should always have been.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

The Secretary of State highlights the scandal of sewage in our seas and rivers. Indeed, raw sewage was dumped into our rivers and seas for 3.6 million hours last year. Since privatisation, £72 billion has been paid to shareholders in dividends, while his Department highlights that it would cost £56 billion to carry out the necessary investment, so privatisation has failed as a model for getting the investments in place. Will he therefore confirm that the commission will look at what ownership model for water will be effective in addressing this scandal, including the option of bringing water back into public hands?

[Steve Reed]

The reason I have ruled out nationalisation is that it would not resolve the problems we face. We saw in the Olympics in France that the River Seine was not able to be used for swimming because of pollution. That is a state-owned water system. We see the problems in Scotland. That is a state-owned water system as well. The problems are those of governance and regulation. Nationalisation would cost towards £100 billion of public money—money that does not exist—and the time it would take to unpick the current models of ownership, during which time investment would be choked off, would see our rivers, lakes and seas filled with even more sewage and pollution, rather than less. I am more interested in the purity of our water than the purity of our ideology. I will do what works best as quickly as possible. The commission will give us guidance on how we should change the system to make sure it works for everybody.

Government Support for the RSPCA

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for securing this important debate.

It is a pleasure to speak on this topic, as protecting and advocating for the voices of animals that cannot speak for themselves is hugely important to me both personally and politically. It is important personally because care for animals is one of the things that I can remember, back to my childhood, first caring about the most. As a 15-year-old, I took the decision not to consume any animal products, which I have stuck with ever since. Like other Members, I have a rescue cat, called Bella. Our relationships with our pets often open our hearts to how we think about other species. It is important politically because animal protection issues are some of the top issues that I hear about from constituents in my inbox, as I am sure is the case for other Members. The British really are a nation of animal lovers. Of course, animal protection is core to Green philosophy and Green party politics.

I join others in recognising the vital work done by the RSPCA over the 200 years since its formation in a London café. It is the first and oldest animal welfare charity to be founded, and as a nation of animal lovers we know that it has been keen to foster that reputation, as well as helping to care for the hundreds of thousands of animals each year that are abandoned, neglected, tortured, or harmed or which simply need rehoming. The RSPCA has also been key when it comes to securing some of the strongest animal protection laws in the world, and I pay tribute to its remarkable achievements in that respect. It is no exaggeration to say that without the RSPCA, animals in this country and worldwide today would be far less protected from cruelty. I thank everyone who has been part of that successful track record, from the early founders to the frontline inspectors and from the protection officers who make a tangible difference on a daily basis to those who successfully bring such a high number of prosecutions for breaking laws such as the Animal Welfare Act 2006. That work really matters, and I hope that the Government will continue actively to support it.

Much has changed in the 200 years since the RSPCA was established, including the context in which it operates. For example, our understanding that suffering occurs when all types of animals are subject to testing has grown massively, and I very much hope that the RSPCA and the Government get behind promoting modern, more effective and cruelty-free methods of testing that do not involve animals. Our attitude towards animals has also changed: 61% of the British public feel some discomfort about the way animals are treated on farms, and factory farms in particular, according to research from this time last year by the Social Market Foundation.

Sadly, though, animal exploitation continues, from the treatment of the 15 Gentoo penguins at Sea Life London Aquarium, which are currently kept in an enclosure with no natural light or fresh air and only six or seven feet of water in which to dive, to the continued use of greyhounds in racing, where dogs face the constant risk of injury or death. I am incredibly proud that compassion towards animals has always been core to the Green party, and that at our autumn conference we became the first party to pledge a ban on greyhound racing—a position that the RSPCA supports, as does the majority of the public. I invite the Minister to comment on the Government’s plans for ending cruelty to animals in so-called sport.

Animal abuse is sadly endemic in considerable parts of our food and farming system. That includes the proliferation of huge chicken sheds, some holding tens of thousands of chickens in incredibly cruel, unnatural conditions, which is a big cause of the river pollution scandal. In my area in East Anglia, in Norfolk and Suffolk, we are seeing a proliferation of these huge industrial sheds, including in Methwold. The World Wildlife Fund has highlighted the real climate, environmental and animal welfare impacts of the project there, and suggested that it needs to be stopped due to the climate impact and the cumulative impact of the number of these projects, including on nutrient pollution and water quality. I challenge the Government, and invite the Minister specifically, to comment on what will be done to address the proliferation of huge industrial chicken sheds and its huge impact on basic standards of animal welfare, as well as on environmental pollution and other issues affecting local communities.

The RSPCA has sought to tackle the treatment of farmed animals specifically with the RSPCA Assured scheme, originally known as Freedom Food when it was created 30 years ago. The scheme seeks to hold certified producers to higher welfare standards than are required under UK law. However, as has been widely reported, it has fallen short of its own high standards, with concerns about overcrowding, poor hygiene and, in some cases, physical abuse of livestock by farm workers on certain farms. I therefore welcome the RSPCA’s decision to conduct an internal review of the scheme, which must be done to ensure that the RSPCA’s reputation is not used as a cover for such issues. I note that the president of the RSPCA, Chris Packham, and the vice-president, former Green MP Caroline Lucas, are closely monitoring the outcome of that review.

As we get to the 200-year anniversary of the RSPCA and warmly welcome and congratulate it on its many achievements, I encourage the RSPCA and the Government to consider the ways in which we need to strengthen protection for animals going forward. That includes addressing the cruelty involved in the proliferation of huge industrial chicken sheds and their impact on the environment and animal protection; addressing the smuggling of puppies and kittens, as other Members have mentioned; introducing stronger regulation on breeders to ensure high welfare standards for dogs and cats; and, in particular, clamping down on the trend of breeding for extreme traits in dogs, which causes huge concerns in terms of breathing, walking and basic welfare standards. I would like the Minister to respond on that specifically.

I also call on the Government to ban the manufacture and use of snares, and to address the cruelty that can occur with the use of animals in sport. Members may not be aware that there were 175 horse deaths on racecourses in 2023. The horseracing industry needs to show how it will stop deaths of horses on racetracks.

We have come so far, haven’t we? We are a nation of animal lovers. We are proud of the RSPCA’s work to support particularly dogs, cats and other animals that are our beloved pets. Yet there is so much more to do, and I look forward to seeing the RSPCA being central to that work. I would welcome hearing from the Minister at the end of the debate about some of the specific animal abuse issues I have highlighted, which I know the British public want addressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adrian Ramsay]

The Minister says that he wants to be ambitious on animal protection and has asked us to watch this space, which we will do, given the cross-party interest in this roomin animal protection issues. He mentioned market forces and trends in animal welfare. May I highlight, therefore, that we are seeing a proliferation of huge industrial chicken sheds in Norfolk and Suffolk, and I am sure around the country? Tens of thousands of birds, and in some cases pigs, are kept in really unpleasant, cramped indoor conditions that are not consistent with welfare standards of the type that the Minister talks about. What action will the Government take to stop that trend? This is about animal protection, river pollution and environmental standards.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I disagree with the hon. Member’s assumption that animal welfare standards are lower in larger-scale production facilities; that is a false premise. I urge him to look at some of the smaller premises that are sometimes undercapitalised and, I am afraid, do not always achieve the welfare standards that we are looking for. I do not think it is as simple as he makes out.

The trade issues are really important. We already lead in Europe—I am going back to the pig sector here—in having a significant outdoor pig sector. Some 40% of the national sow breeding herd farrow freely on outdoor units, with no option for confinement. DEFRA’s statutory welfare code of practice for pigs states that the aim is for farrowing crates to no longer be necessary and for any new system to protect the welfare of the sow as well as her piglets.

In the meantime, under the new “Get funding to improve animal health and welfare” service, a fully funded vet visit known as the animal health and welfare review is available to pig farmers to improve pig health and welfare.

It is fair to say that the United Kingdom is rightly proud of the high animal welfare standards that underpin our high quality British produce, and we will work to ensure that we address low confidence and provide stability for the farming sector.

In conclusion, the Government look forward to delivering the most ambitious programme for animal welfare in a generation. I very much hope we can build on the excellent relationship that we have forged with the RSPCA over many years to progress the various important animal welfare issues that have been raised today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I welcome my hon. Friend to her place. We need to educate the public and ourselves that there is no such place as “away” and that when we bring our children and our picnics to the beach, we should consume the food and leave only footprints in the sand. I am convening a circular economy taskforce, and we will look at seasonal needs as part of that.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

T6. Any cuts to the environmental land management scheme would be a blow to farmers and to the Government’s climate and nature recovery missions. The nature-friendly farming budget needs to be not just maintained but increased. Does the Secretary of State agree with the economic assessment made by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the National Trust and the Wildlife Trusts that the environmental land management budget will need to be increased to around £5.9 billion a year to meet the targets?

[Steve Reed]

The Government remain fully committed to the ELM schemes, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will make announcements about the budget at the appropriate time.