Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Matt Rodda Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in tonight’s debate, and I start by making my own declaration of interests, in that I have family members who work in hydrology and in environmental science, which is closely related to the water industry.

In support of the Bill, I want to make three points about the real experience of my constituents with water pollution, with water supply issues—which are very serious—and on the need for serious action to tackle those issues. I am lucky to represent Reading. It is a wonderful town at the confluence of two major rivers: the River Thames, one of the country’s biggest rivers, and the Kennet, a beautiful tributary of the Thames. It is a chalk stream that starts in the north Berkshire downs and flows into the River Thames at Reading.

[Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend’s constituency neighbours my constituency of Reading West and Mid Berkshire. In addition to the beautiful chalk stream, the Kennet, I also have the beautiful River Pang, which has unfortunately been decimated by the sewage outflows under the previous Government, with children walking to school through raw sewage in the streets—an absolute disgrace. Does he agree that the measures in this Bill will get tough on failing water companies such as Thames Water?

[Matt Rodda]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. That is exactly the problem, and I want to help Members to picture its seriousness.

In 2023, Foudry brook, which flows into the Kennet, was badly polluted. Next to well-established willow trees on the banks of that small river, which flows through local fields and past people’s terraced houses into Reading, I saw with my own eyes putrid green water—the stench was unbelievable—caused by a sewage outfall in Hampshire that flowed into Foudry brook and ultimately into the Kennet, then into the main River Thames. That is the sort of disgusting pollution that we are concerned about, which is why I am so pleased with the Government’s action on this important matter. It is also important to local residents who live next to rivers, who walk near rivers, who use canoes or boats in rivers, or who fish in rivers. Thousands of local residents in my area, across our county and in other similar parts of England, as well as those living near lakes and seas, are affected by this issue.

I have seen other appalling instances of pollution. In another case, I was walking with my wife next to the Thames in the middle of winter. It was a beautiful scene and, looking across the river, we could see trees, fields and hillsides in the distance. There was a heron on the water. Sadly, this view was blighted by the sight of dark brown-cream foam frothing on the river and gathering next to an island—the foam was caused by nitrate pollution from sewage.

This was in the River Thames, in a beautiful area just outside Reading, and it is the sort of disgusting pollution that we and our constituents are all having to face. That is why this Bill is so important, and I hope we can all agree to support it because such appalling pollution simply should not be taking place in England, or in any part of the United Kingdom.

I realise that time is pressing, but the measures in this Bill will also tackle some very serious issues with water supply. I have residents who had their water cut off for two days, nearly a year ago, and still have not been compensated. This affected hundreds of people living in east Reading, in the Newtown area near Reading University and the Royal Berkshire hospital. They were unable to shower or cook, and they had multiple other problems caused by the lack of water supply. I endorse the Government’s measures to toughen up the response to such failures of service.

We recently had another incident where residents were expected to drive 9 miles to Henley-on-Thames to collect water, which is simply unacceptable. Residents, including vulnerable residents, had to drive for a 45 or 50-minute round trip to collect bottled water from a Tesco supermarket on the outskirts of Henley, yet there were multiple sites in the north part of Reading from where emergency water supplies could have been delivered.

Both examples show why this important legislation is needed. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak tonight, and I look forward to hearing more from my hon. Friends.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Financial Inclusion: Rural Areas

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Anna Sabine]

I totally agree. I had not considered that for my speech, but I will take away unregulated moneylending as a point to note.

Since the Financial Conduct Authority changed its regulations, Link has been able to do some valuable work to provide cash access to local areas. However, I urge the Government to look at how to make the regulations for Link more flexible to allow it to work on a case-by-case basis, as the current criteria do not take into account certain geographical and other barriers that affect rural areas. We know that 93% of people live within 1 mile of an ATM, which on paper sounds good, but it does not take into account issues that might come up in rural areas. For example, if someone lives in a village or hamlet, that 1-mile walk might have no safe walking routes and no bus connection. That is why we want to see the legislation expanded to include specific geographical, physical and societal barriers, so that they are taken into consideration.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech about both the accessibility of banks and other financial services and the challenges faced by residents in rural areas. In my Reading Central constituency, we face similar challenges with the large village of Caversham, which is now part of Reading. Many Caversham residents struggle because they have to go into Reading town centre. Although it is pedestrianised, it can be quite an intimidating journey for someone who is disabled, and perhaps involves a bus journey for someone with limited mobility. Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a valid point about the location of banking services in terms of how close they are to parking and residents homes, and that short journeys are much better for disabled and vulnerable residents?

[Anna Sabine]

I totally agree with the hon. Member; that is exactly the point that we are trying to make. I believe Link wants the flexibility to make more subtle judgments, rather than working on a flat assessment structure.

With the closure of bank branches, banking hubs are becoming a lifeline for many towns, reinvigorating high streets and increasing football—footfall, even. They probably increase football as well. Frome residents are excited to have their banking hub open soon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

Absolutely. Link is covered by the Financial Conduct Authority, which has a duty to promote growth. The criteria on which it bases its decision include whether there is a bank branch remaining, the population size, the number of shops on the high street, the distance to the nearest bank branch, the public transport links and the vulnerability of the population. I urge Members to appeal if they find themselves unsuccessful the first time around.

Alongside access to cash, I know that constituents are concerned about challenges in accessing in-person banking. As has been highlighted in this debate, that is particularly an issue for individuals living in rural areas, where in-person services are less easily accessed than in urban areas.

[Matt Rodda]

Does the Minister agree that an important point is that disabled and vulnerable people want to speak to another person? Getting advice and guidance from a qualified person who represents the bank and can help them with their banking is something that particularly concerns my constituents. It can also apply to small businesses, many of which want the ability to engage with bank staff to discuss their own financial matters.

[Emma Hardy]

I absolutely agree that that is important. On the issue of vulnerability, sometimes in-person services are a way in which financial coercion can be identified, which is always a huge concern. That is why the banking hubs are so important and the Government are committed to rolling them out. It is completely in character for my hon. Friend to highlight the need to support vulnerable people in his constituency.

My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is working closely with the industry to roll out 350 banking hubs across the UK, which will provide individuals who need face-to-face support with critical banking services. As I say, I am personally hugely supportive of the banking hubs.

We are taking further steps to ensure that individuals can access the financial services and products that they need. Last week—I was very excited about this—the Government announced a financial inclusion strategy to further tackle the problems of financial inclusion. The strategy will be supported by a committee that the Economic Secretary convened for the first time last week. The committee brings together consumer groups and the financial sector to consider a range of barriers to inclusion for excluded groups, focusing on key policy areas such as access to banking, insurance and affordable credit, another huge problem for vulnerable people.

It is clear that there are significant challenges that need addressing. A quarter of adults have less than £100 in savings. Over a million adults are unbanked. There is a reported £2 billion of unmet need for credit, and over 8 million people are struggling with financial debt. Under the financial inclusion strategy, the committee will be working with consumer groups and industry to develop a strategy, considering a range of barriers.

To tackle the long-term issues effectively, we need to listen to the voice of experts. That is why we have convened this group, which will be tasked with drawing on relevant expertise across the sector and on lived experience. We will also be listening to people on the ground, because this will require a joined-up approach across Government, the financial services sector and frontline organisations. We will be engaging widely on this agenda to ensure that the strategy considers a wide range of frontline perspectives.

The strategy will be published next year, following extensive work by the Financial Inclusion Committee to consider the barriers to access and solutions to address them. It is important that we take the time to get this right and seek input from those who are most affected by the issue of financial exclusion. That is why the Government have made clear our commitment to going further in tackling it. While that work is in its early stages, I know that the Economic Secretary recognises its importance to our constituents and will keep the House updated as it progresses.

I thank the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset again. It has been a pleasure to participate in her first Westminster Hall debate, and I thank all hon. Members for participating. There is a lot of support in this room for banking services, and a recognition of the importance of face-to-face services and access to cash. It is crucial for everybody in our society to have access to the financial services they need, regardless of where they live.

Question put and agreed to.

Storm Bert

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

My thoughts are with all those affected over the weekend. I also thank everyone who has been protecting the public at this very difficult time. The levels on the River Kennet, which is a tributary of the Thames—and indeed the Thames itself—have been rising to dangerous levels in recent hours. Could the Secretary of State provide an update on specific matters in the Thames valley region, in particular the flood defence schemes in the Reading area and the vital work that he is preparing to do upstream to plant more trees and to rewild to avoid flooding?

[Steve Reed]

I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome our proposals to review the formula so that we can look at nature-based flood management in the way that he described. I will ask the Environment Agency to contact him with an update on what is going on in his constituency, and what further action is being taken as the river continues to rise to ensure that his constituents are kept safe.

Rural Affairs

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

I commend the Secretary of State’s broad approach. In my constituency there is a serious issue with precious flood plains being speculatively bought by developers, which is causing a huge amount of concern to local residents. It is also an issue in terms of the potential threat to wildlife habitats and of the impact on flooding. Will the Secretary of State consider meeting me and local residents to discuss this important matter?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend is a great champion for his community. I am of course more than happy to meet him and people from his community to discuss those important issues.

The measures in the Budget will enable us to build a stronger, more sustainable future for British agriculture and put in place our new deal for farmers, which includes making the supply chain fairer so that producers are no longer forced to sell their food below the price of production; speeding up planning decisions to help farmers to diversify into new forms of income; seeking a new veterinary agreement—

Planning, the Green Belt and Rural Affairs

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Friday 19th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. Let me first thank my constituents for returning me to this place; I am representing many of them for the first time.

I wish to speak in support of the King’s Speech, and to raise a number of points about issues that are important to my constituents and to many others across the country. The King’s Speech set out nothing less than a programme for national renewal, presenting a chance for us to change our country for the better for the benefit of all its people, including my constituents in Reading. I want to draw on a series of examples to show just how important these measures actually are.>

I will start with the important area of infrastructure, including the need for data centres, onshore wind and new electricity connectivity. All are absolutely essential if we are to get our economy growing again after 14 years of very low growth and, indeed, austerity. Building new homes is vital for tackling the housing crisis, and I speak from great experience. Residents in Reading are under severe pressure because of the high cost of purchasing a house in the home counties, the very high cost of renting and the growing population. Thousands of local families are struggling to get on the housing ladder; they are struggling both to buy and to find good-quality rental properties.

Action to build on greyfield sites and put brownfield sites first is essential in trying to tackle this huge problem, and I will give a short example from my experience as a local councillor. One of the hardest things that I ever had to do as a councillor was to try to help families who had been moved out following no-fault evictions. It was absolutely and utterly heartbreaking to see families with both parents in work struggling to find a new place to live after being moved out by a landlord, which is the sort of issue that measures in the King’s Speech will tackle. It is absolutely essential that we take this matter forward and deal with these really pressing social problems, which affect people across our country and which are dreadful for so many families, particularly in many of the towns and cities represented on the Government Benches.

I would like to draw out a number of other measures that are important to my residents and others across the country, particularly the Government’s commitment to legislate on knife crime. I have experienced appalling cases in my area, including the dreadful murder of a 13-year-old boy. I can only say that my heart goes out to any family affected by this appalling crime. The measures announced to tackle the problem through much tougher action on knives, and to provide better support for teenagers, are absolutely essential, and I hope they will be welcomed by Members of all parties.

I would also like to make a point in support of GB Energy. The Government are absolutely right to look at a new way to increase investment in green energy. We face an unprecedented crisis in the form of the climate emergency, and we must take action. It is simply vital that we move forward on this matter.

Rail renationalisation will make a huge difference to thousands of the residents I represent and, indeed, to people across the country. I echo many Members’ support for rail and public transport, which plays a very important role in connecting people across this country.

Finally, I thoroughly endorse and encourage the Government’s action to promote football regulation, which is long overdue. Some good work was carried out under the previous Government, and it is important that this continues. I hope that the legislation will support and help many clubs across the country that are struggling with enormous challenges, including my team, Reading football club. I look forward to hearing more on this issue later.

I am conscious of the time. I congratulate the many new Members who have spoken so eloquently today, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak, Mr Chope.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

I call Alison Griffiths to make her maiden speech.

Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 17th May 2024 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

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

[Steve Reed]

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

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

Animal Welfare (Responsibility for Dog Attacks) Bill

Matt Rodda Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

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

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

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

Thames Water: Contingency Plans

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Friday 15th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

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

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

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

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

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

[Sarah Olney]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Spencer]

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

[Matt Rodda]

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

[Mark Spencer]

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

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

Matt Rodda Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

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

[Ashley Dalton]

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

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

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

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

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

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill  

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mike Penning]

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

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

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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