River Habitats: Protection and Restoration

Debate between Ashley Fox and Tom Hayes

Thursday 29th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton)—my Dorset neighbour—for securing this really important debate. This issue matters an awful lot to him, and he represents it perfectly on behalf of his constituents. I note that this is the debut of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, my good friend the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), who is responding to the debate. I am pleased to see her in her place and look forward to hearing what she has to say.

This is a timely debate: in the last day, a severe flood warning has been issued for the lower Stour at Iford Bridge Home Park and across Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, due to Storm Chandra. The levels of the River Stour are rising rapidly. I put on the record my thanks to my constituents, who have put up with Storm Chandra and the disruption involved. Many of them have had to be evacuated, and they have been stoical.

My constituents’ lives have been made harder, though, because the electrical supply was unsafe at Iford Bridge Home Park, which is what forced evacuations. That was avoidable: the power supply was left unprotected by the owner, Hampshire Mobile Park Home Enterprises Ltd. It was fined over £27,000 last summer for failing to carry out 33 required actions that would, among other things, have improved electrical safety, but it has also failed to do that since. I will be seeking a response from the owner and pressing for answers, because my constituents deserve to feel safe in their own homes—always.

Equally, there needs to be greater maintenance of our rivers. We need to dredge up and get rid of everything that raises the river bed so that, when flooding happens, what washes through streets is not detritus and sewage, which make people’s recovery from flooding so much harder. I thank the BCP council’s teams, and the Environment Agency, for responding and standing alongside my constituents in that difficult time.

Water quality is uppermost in the minds of my constituents; it comes up often in my surgery appointments, on the doorsteps weekly and in my community visits. It is also particularly on the minds of my school students. Already, this calendar year, I have been to Avonbourne—a fantastic school doing amazing things—to speak with students on a youth enterprise scheme, and to St Walburga’s, Malmesbury Park, the Epiphany school and St James’ academy. Pretty much every question that I was asked in those classrooms was about the quality of water.

Younger people care passionately about our planet, about its protection and about their right to swim without being washed over by sewage. They want the Government to get this right. At St James’ academy, I went into two different classrooms and spoke with the eco-councillors. They talked at great length, with great eloquence and expertise, about what we should be doing, so I wanted to talk a little bit about that in this debate.

I also want to put on the record my thanks to Christchurch Harbour and Marine Society, which has been working with citizen scientists to make sure that Christchurch harbour’s water quality can be improved. In so doing, it is setting an example to the young people in the schools I mentioned. The society is calling for a dedicated conservation policy for the harbour. I know that is important, and I know, from testing water quality in that harbour, that much could be done to improve the situation.

I know, too, that those school students are concerned about the situation in the River Stour. That is not surprising, really: as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset was saying, our rivers have been heavily modified and are not fit for purpose. An estimated 85% of the UK’s rivers and streams have been altered from their natural state. Landscapes cannot cope with the pace and the extent of climate impacts such as flooding from storms and heavy rainfall. Indeed, 20% of UK homes and 80% of UK farmers have already felt the negative impacts of those changes in our environment.

On the same front, the UK faces a growing water-scarcity crisis. England alone will need an additional 5 billion litres of water a day by 2050 to support our growing population. We already use 14 billion litres a day, so that is equivalent to 35% of our current consumption. As we just heard from my hon. Friend, we have some of the unhealthiest rivers in Europe, thanks to the inheritance left us by the Conservatives. Only a third of the UK’s river stretches are in good ecological health, with many in dire states as a consequence of physical modifications, intermittent agricultural and road run-off, and continuous discharges from sewage treatment.

Lastly, biodiversity across the UK is declining. On average, UK species have fallen by 19% since 1970, and just 3% of England’s land is effectively protected and managed for nature. Pollinators, native mammals and freshwater species such as Atlantic salmon or brown trout, which once thrived in our rivers, are on the brink of collapse. Is it any wonder that the younger generation are outraged and want us to act?

And we are acting: this Government got to work quickly. It was a pleasure to sit on the Water (Special Measures) Bill Committee with my hon. Friend the Minister, where we heard much flim-flam from the Opposition. In spite of that, we managed to crack on with introducing significant measures, be it the banning of executive bonuses if firms fail—[Interruption.] I beg your pardon, Ms Butler; the Minister has made me laugh now.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Tom Hayes]

I will very happily, at this point, give way.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

At the risk of delivering more “flim-flam”, I should say that the hon. Member has just told us that it was the Water (Special Measures) Act that announced the ban on company bonuses. Would he concede that that was actually introduced, in regulations, by the last Conservative Government? In fact, his Government have just put a regulation into statute; that did not actually change the law at all.

[Tom Hayes]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I think that is a perfect example of leading with one’s chin; there is a little bit of brass neck involved in that. When we speak with our constituents and with the water sector, they are abundantly clear about the difference that this Labour Government, and these changes in particular, have made.

We just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset about the poor performance of Wessex Water’s chief executives; earlier this year, its chief executive and chief financial officer took £50,000 in undisclosed extra payments from the parent company and a former Wessex Water chief executive was handed a huge £170,000 payment—again, from the parent company. I struggle to remember any significant fining of water companies under the Conservatives. Indeed, I have spoken to people from the water sector, and they told me that they felt it was like the wild west. They welcome the fact that we finally have a Government who are getting the situation under control.

I welcome the Minister’s work on the Water (Special Measures) Act, which banned executive bonuses at failing firms and introduced “jail if they fail” for executives, automatic penalties for a range of offences, and mandatory real-time monitoring. I also welcome the Government’s work since, with the commitment to seeing sewage pollution and storm overflow spills reduced by 50% by 2030, as well as 10,000 water quality inspections per year, and with the Environment Agency securing a record £22.1 billion in investment over the next five years. I am particularly pleased to see investment of around £230 million by Wessex Water in my constituency and the wider area, and I have been to both sewage treatment plants to see how the work is going.

I am pleased that we are making progress, and that includes the replacement of Ofwat, which has been failing for a long time, with an independent regulator. However, there is more to do. We need to protect communities from the dangers of flooding and drought through the creation of multi-benefit mosaic habitats. In so doing, we can unlock their full potential for nature recovery, carbon storage and flood mitigation. We need to help farmers to continue delivering our food security, by prioritising the deployment of buffers on marginal agricultural land so that farmers benefit financially and can mitigate impacts on food production. We need to boost biodiversity and nature recovery by enhancing river corridors and making space for rivers to return to their natural function. In so doing, we can boost biodiversity and nature recovery through the creation of new and more connected natural habitats.

We also need to clean up our rivers. In the words of Martin Lines, the chief executive officer of the Nature Friendly Farming Network, healthy and functioning river corridors are

“a practical way to improve water quality, reduce flood risk and restore biodiversity.”

He says that farmers

“are part of the solution”—

he is right—and that

“with the right backing, these nature-rich corridors can help futureproof both our land and our livelihoods.”

Richard Benwell, the chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link, says:

“Carving out space to re-naturalise rivers would bring ecosystems to life, reduce flood risk and bring joy to millions.”

In closing, I echo my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset in welcoming the first ever licensed beaver wild release in England, in our beautiful county of Dorset. It is good news for Dorset, it is good news for our country and I feel sure there is more good news to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this debate; it is a welcome opportunity to talk about the importance of our rivers and the vital need to protect and restore them. He is right to say that we need to improve the health of our rivers.

This has been a good debate. I enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns). She is correct to describe our rivers and streams as the “veins and arteries” of our environment. I noted she said that she wants water companies to be taken into public ownership, but she did not say how she would pay for it. I am left wondering if it is Green policy to confiscate those assets from the shareholders, or to pay compensation. If it is to pay compensation, how much and who pays for it? Dare I say, that is an error that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), also fell into. She said that she was in favour of a radical policy, but did not explain how she intended to pay for it.

I enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes). I agree with him on the need for more dredging of our rivers. It is unacceptable that the Environment Agency has withdrawn from main river maintenance. The hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) described rivers as amazing ecosystems, and I agree with him. I also agree that when water companies break the law, they should be punished swiftly and severely. The hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) described the beauty of the countryside as one of the joys of life. I am with him on that, even though he and I may not agree on many other things.

I congratulate my Somerset constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead, on leading for her party in this debate. She said that farmers are “custodians of the natural world”, and I agree. Next time she speaks on water, I hope that she will give us the price tag for her party’s policy of renationalising the water industry.

The River Parrett flows through my constituency. It is rather too high for comfort at the moment. Some of my constituents are watching the water level with concern. I sincerely hope that their homes are not flooded over the next few days. The Parrett hosts an abundance of species, from heron to eels—anyone who is lucky may even see an otter. It is also important for the wider ecosystem, including roe deer, which we are fortunate enough to enjoy having in Somerset.

I was fortunate to have the opportunity to support a local campaign in my constituency to save the Pawlett Hams in the first weeks after I was elected to Parliament. Pawlett Hams is a beautiful natural habitat, bounded on three sides by the Parrett, which impacts that environment. I was pleased that that campaign was successful in defeating EDF Energy’s proposal to create an unwanted saltmarsh there. I raise this because I understand the importance and beauty of our rivers, and I know how passionate many of our constituents are about preserving and protecting them.

The previous Government started the process of improving the health of our rivers, but there is much more to be done. Their plan for water introduced the water restoration fund, which channelled environmental fines and penalties into projects that improve the water environment. The Environment Act 2021 introduced legally binding targets to reduce the length of rivers polluted by harmful metals from abandoned mines, to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment pollution from agriculture in the water environment by at least 40%, and to reduce phosphorus loadings from treated waste water by 80%. We also substantially increased the monitoring of water quality. When Labour left power in 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were being monitored; today, that figure stands at 100%. It is thanks to that progress that we now understand the scale of the problem.

In terms of their ecological health, only 15% of our rivers enjoy “good” status. That is not good enough. There are various reasons for pollution, including sewage treatment works, waste water, storm overflows, agricultural pollution, and urban and transport run-off. Invasive species are also threatening native animals. Between 1960 and 2019, the number of non-native freshwater species more than doubled, from 21 to 46. I invite the Minister to comment in her response on what work the Government are doing to support the restoration of wetland or freshwater species, which have experienced a decline. Despite their promises to fix the water system, the Government’s recent water White Paper was surprisingly slim. That is disappointing, given the detailed and thorough examination of the sector by Sir Jon Cunliffe’s independent review.

The Government have said that their transition plan will be published this year. When she responds, can the Minister guarantee that it will actually be published this year, and that it will be published when Parliament is sitting, not on the last day before a substantial recess—or, in fact, during a recess? Will she also acknowledge that, for all her Government’s talk about improving water quality, the Water (Special Measures) Act, which they passed last year, consisted of regulations already announced by the previous Conservative Government that they repackaged as a statute.

[Tom Hayes]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Based on the start of his speech, he is clearly a dedicated environmentalist and conservationist. He represents Bridgwater, which is covered by Wessex Water, whose former CEO, Colin Skellett, got £12.6 million in pay and bonuses across a decade, with those bonuses totalling £3.4 million. Over a decade of Conservative rule, executives of the nine largest English and Welsh water and sewage companies got £112 million in pay and bonuses. If the Conservatives provided regulations, why did they let water bosses line their own pockets and allow them to pump out filth?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I do not think it is for the Government to regulate the salaries of the private sector. It was the Conservative Government that introduced the necessary regulations that enabled those water companies that were failing to be prevented from paying dividends and bonuses. He might argue that we came to that a bit late, and I might agree with him. However, he should acknowledge that we were the ones who took that action, and it is those regulations that form the basis of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025.

I want to take this opportunity to ask the Minister about our canals. Members may have seen the recent incident involving the collapse of a canal embankment in Shropshire. Two narrowboats were left at the bottom of a trench in the canal bed, with a third left hanging over the edge. Many other boats were left grounded. I understand that the cause of the breach is still being investigated, but what assessment has the Minister made of the age and structure of the UK’s canal network, and the impact that have on the natural environment? Is she satisfied that the current funding is adequate?

To conclude, Britain’s rivers and waterways are an integral part of our environment. It is important that we improve their quality, and we will scrutinise the Government to ensure that they keep the promises they made at the election.

Jury Trials

Debate between Ashley Fox and Tom Hayes

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I do not agree that the Government should curtail our rights to trial by jury. Trial by jury is an ancient right in England and the very essence of our criminal justice system. Combined with the Government proposals for digital ID, it reveals a very authoritarian attitude. It marks a significant shift in the balance of power between the citizen and the state, and I shall vote against it.

There is a crisis within the criminal justice system and specifically with the Crown court backlog, but that backlog was not caused by trial by jury and will not be cured by its removal. Why does the Lord Chancellor believe that abolishing the right to jury trials for those likely to receive a sentence of three years or less is the right thing to do to bring down the backlog? If it is based on evidence, as he says, will he publish that as soon as possible?

In the last two years, Government figures show that the Ministry of Justice, which includes the court service, lost the highest number of days per member of staff in sickness and absence in the whole of Whitehall, at an average of 10.7 days of sickness—more than two working weeks for every member of staff. That is more than 30% higher than the civil service average and over twice the UK average if the private sector is included. Were the Lord Chancellor to focus his efforts on improving the efficiency of his own Department, he might start to see the system as a whole improve.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I was not going to intervene, but I think it is important to because I have just visited Bournemouth Crown court and magistrates court, and the people there talked about that question of sickness. They talked about the fact that their staff have been carrying the load for so many members of a team who were not in place because they had seen austerity. Many staff in the Crown court system may be going on to sickness leave because they are burned out. They are burned out from years of cuts. Does the hon. Member not recognise that we need to invest in our Crown court system so that they can get back on their feet and our criminal justice can also get back on its feet?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

In my experience, staff absence is normally the result of poor management. I suspect that the Ministry of Justice is managing its staff significantly worse than the rest of the civil service if staff sickness is 30% above the public sector average, which is not great to begin with. With approximately 16,400 staff in the court service, simply reducing the rate of absences to the civil service average would free up nearly 50,000 working days. That would help cut the backlog without undermining the principle of a fair trial.

We know that this Government have a habit of making bad decisions, getting ambitious Back Benchers to defend them for a few months and sending a hapless junior Minister out to face the media while the Secretary of State hides in his office, only at the last minute to realise what a disaster the plans are before executing a U-turn that comes far too late for them to gain any credit. We have seen that on winter fuel, welfare reform, the grooming gangs inquiry, the two-child benefit cap and, most recently, the family farm and family business tax, so I urge Labour Back Benchers to be very cautious about supporting the Government this evening. They risk voting for something that their constituents do not want and that in their hearts, they know is wrong. Ultimately, they know that late in the day, the Government will back down, leaving their credibility in shreds.

Stamp Duty Land Tax

Debate between Ashley Fox and Tom Hayes

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Ashley Fox]

That is another valuable point. This tax cut benefits not just the housing market but the jobs market, and therefore the whole economy. Our politics ought to empower people, not load them with additional burdens. This is an important measure for young people, because, as we acknowledge, they face higher costs and more competition for housing than their parents did.

To be credible, we must explain how we will pay for this measure. That is a valid question, and, unlike some parties in this place, we will not make promises without a plan for delivery. The measure is possible as part of a wider package of economic reform, spending discipline and growth creation. The Government were elected on a policy of “going for growth”, yet everything that they do seems designed to bring about the opposite. A jobs tax makes it more expensive to employ people; higher business rates make it more expensive to conduct business in a property; the changes in agricultural and business property relief—increasing inheritance tax—reduce investment by family businesses; and the Employment Rights Bill makes it more expensive, time-consuming and difficult to employ people. The Government have turned on the spending taps and levied record levels of tax, while at the same time implementing measures that increase unemployment and make Britain less competitive. Every Labour Government has led to higher unemployment, and it is deeply regrettable that in every month since the general election, unemployment has risen. I do not think that the Government are malevolent; they simply have no clue about how business works.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

The Conservative party’s position on the green economy is now to remove some of the support for it. Figures show that the green economy is growing by around 10%; it is fuelling job creation and often provides better-paid jobs. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is in the economy’s interests to cut the legs out from underneath the green economy?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Well, I am amazed to hear that the real economy is growing by 10%. That must be a forecaster I have not heard of! We believe it is possible to cut welfare spending. In fact, a few months ago, the hon. Gentleman’s party believed it was possible. The Government put forward a modest proposal to reduce welfare spending by £5 billion, which had our support, yet, unfortunately, at the first whiff of rebellion, the Chancellor caved. That shows that the Government have no idea how finance works, how business works or how confidence works. They undermined their credibility by being unable to undertake even the smallest reform.

We can announce the abolition of stamp duty because we have promised to put Britain on a different track. Our golden rule means that, for every pound we make in savings, half will go on reducing the deficit and paying down our debts. We will reduce spending by £47 billion a year, and have announced plans to do so. About half of that will come from cutting the welfare bill, including stopping the ballooning bill for Motability cars for those with mild mental health issues. Some £8 billion of savings will come from reducing the civil service to the size it was before the pandemic. We will save money by closing asylum hotels, reserving other benefits to UK nationals, and coming to a more credible position on net zero.

By taking those tough choices, we can cut taxes and help the economy. We estimate that abolishing stamp duty will cost £9 billion, which is set against the savings we have outlined. By pledging to remove it, we are signalling that we believe in growth, in enterprise and in enabling every citizen to build their future.