Pet Abduction Bill

Robert Buckland Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown), who spoke with passion about her devoted pet. Her story will be repeated millions of times across our country, bearing in mind our reputation—I think, in the main, our justly held reputation—as a nation of animal lovers. I will come on to some of the exceptions that we all know about in a moment.

If it is true that pets take on the characteristics of the people who look after them, then in the case of the cat who lives in my house—I put it that way rather than saying “my cat”—I would say that her propensity to be demanding and voluble may well bear some similarities to me. I leave it for the House to draw its own conclusions. Our cat is, of course, a Cats Protection cat. She is the second cat we have had in our family, both from Cats Protection, and I pay tribute to that wonderful organisation. We need never buy a cat in this country: there are tens of thousands of deserving cats who need a home, and charities such as Cats Protection provide a wonderful source of cats that need love and a home.

Our cat is named after Mrs Landingham—devotees of “The West Wing” will know that she was a great character, the President’s secretary in the first two seasons of that wonderful drama—and she has been with us now for several years. As I say, the relationship between cats and their families can be a complex one, and ours is no exception, but she is well loved, particularly by my daughter, who really enjoys her company. That is another story to add to the millions of others for whom the prospect of losing their pet would be one of real trauma—and we know the cases of trauma that exist.

Back in 2021, when I was in office as Justice Secretary, together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who was then the Home Secretary, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who was then the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we set up the pet theft taskforce. The taskforce consisted of not just officials from our three respective Departments but two police and crime commissioners—Katy Bourne, the Sussex PCC, and Chris Nelson, the Gloucestershire PCC—along with police leads and representatives of the Crown Prosecution Service and animal welfare groups.

We took evidence from a wealth of organisations such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Dogs Trust and the Kennel Club, and indeed the Sentencing Council, bearing in mind the need to consider the interrelationship between any sentencing regime and sentencing for existing offences. It had been put very strongly at the time that we had the law of theft to cover the taking of animals and pets, and quite rightly, many lawyers said, “Well, what on earth are we doing? We don’t need another law and another layer of complexity for prosecutors and police to consider.”

However, it became abundantly clear that the treatment of animals as chattels, goods or property just does not meet the way in which society regards our pets. They are sentient beings—sentient creatures. They are much more than mere property, and therefore the definitions in the Theft Act start to become strained to breaking point. More than that, the Theft Act requires a test of dishonesty, defining theft as the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving that person of it. Those elements all have to be proved in order to prove theft. It is not just dishonesty, but an intention to permanently deprive. Herein comes the obvious line that many perpetrators would deploy, which is, “I was not intending to take this animal. I was taking it in for its welfare, and I was not going to permanently keep it.”

You can already see, Mr Deputy Speaker, some of the evidential challenges that might present themselves in proving the offence of theft, which is why the analogy with abduction seemed to me to be much more sensible. The law of child abduction has been part of our law for many decades and was last revised in the Child Abduction Act 1984. Those of us who are criminal practitioners—I see my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) in the Chamber—will be familiar with it. No doubt he has done cases involving child abduction, and I certainly have. It is nothing to do with dishonesty, and nothing to do with the dishonest state of mind of a person. It is all about the taking of a child from a family situation, sometimes out of the country. The consent of the child, when the child is under a certain age, is immaterial.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am getting a bit confused now. The whole point about the Theft Act is that intent has to be proved—mens rea. What happens when somebody takes a cat or a dog—this is precisely the point that my right hon. and learned Friend was making—and says, “I thought he was a stray so I was doing it for his welfare”? We are not going to have a great court case about the state of mind of that person, are we?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Buckland]

No, we are not, because the provisions of the Bill give the defence of reasonable excuse or lawful authority and, in any sensible analysis of a case, a police officer or a prosecutor will, of course, bear that very much in mind when weighing up the evidence. Clearly, in the cases that my right hon. Friend envisages, cat lovers and people who are clearly interested in the welfare of animals and pets will be covered by reasonable excuse or lawful authority.

We have to acknowledge, sadly, that contrary to what happened with Granny Meow—I nearly called her Granny Pussy, but I am sure that Hansard will deal with that—there are groups out there that are unscrupulous, particularly regarding dogs. They profit out of the illegal and underground breeding of animals and the passing off of dogs, in particular, as pedigree breeds when in fact they are nothing of the sort. When I was Solicitor General, I had to deal with an unduly lenient sentence reference case to the Court of Appeal relating to a conspiracy involving a veterinary surgeon and people who were in effect importing greyhounds, I think, from Ireland that were sadly not pedigree breeds, and who were then profiting from selling the dogs on. That sort of trade is abusive. It involves poor welfare standards. Frankly, it involves the abuse of animals and quite rightly horrifies right-thinking people across our country.

Some might naively think that the theft of dogs in particular is an ad hoc thing done on the spur of the moment, but I am afraid that is not the case. There is evidence of organised criminality and the taking of animals that are seen to have a value. That was uncovered during the work of the taskforce. Policymakers, including me, contemplated introducing legislation to criminalise dog abduction with a power in the proposed Bill to extend it to other types of animal. I am glad that we have gone further today in having a specific offence of cat abduction. Although such behaviour seems less prevalent, there is no doubt that it happens. There are cats of very high value and people see potential money to be made. There are examples of that happening, sadly. Rather than waiting to do something, it is right that we take action to protect cats as well. The provision in the Bill to extend the type of offence to other animals is welcome. It gives lawmakers the flexibility to do that through secondary legislation.

Keeping it simple is the way forward. In previous iterations—we saw elements of this Bill in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill that was withdrawn— there was talk about bringing in a test of dishonesty, which was a departure from the policy intent set out in the pet theft taskforce report and a complication of the situation. Sticking to dog and cat is good sense. There is a temptation to try to create a general offence about sentient mammals, but I think that is too clever by half. The Bill should commend itself to the House on the basis that it uses familiar, well-known definitions and keeps things as clear as possible.

As my hon. Friend the Minister will remember, the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 dramatically changed the way we deal with welfare offences. It upped the maximum sentence to five years, which was a big moment in animal welfare law reform, and it is right that the offence of abduction matches that maximum. That is welcomed by Blue Cross and by me, and it creates consistency. Some would say it is two years less than the maximum for theft, but we are looking at a different regime.

If and when offences are brought to court, and people either plead guilty or are convicted, we want sentencers to look at that offence not only from the point of view of the keeper or the owner but with regard to the welfare effect on the animal and the condition of the dog or cat that has been abducted or taken. Therefore, we need to understand the offence from a welfare point of view. There have been some horrendous cases in which dogs that have been taken have been treated very badly and have been returned to their owners in a terrible state. We want that to be reflected in any sentence passed by a magistrates court or, indeed, a Crown court.

The sentences are either-way offences and, bearing in mind the maximum sentence of five years, they can go to the Crown court for trial or sentencing if the magistrates think their powers of sentencing are inadequate. Sadly, there will be cases in which that will happen and where the welfare of the dog or cat in question has been abused. In developing sentencing guidelines, which the independent Sentencing Council will do as a result of the new offences, it is important that the welfare of the animal will be a consideration at the heart of the way in which courts approach the sentencing exercise in these cases.

It is right that we are moving away from a rather Victorian view of animals as goods and chattels. In using the term “abduction” we are striking the right balance between the need not to complicate the law but to reflect the reality of how we view our cats, dogs and much-loved pets and the effect on their welfare of their unlawful or criminal taking. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) for her work in this area. I should put on the record that she and I were at Bar school together some years ago—I will not say how many. She is a lawyer of some distinction and experience, and a former practitioner, so it is appropriate for her to bring forward this Bill. I am delighted to support it wholeheartedly—progress, at last.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. People who steal, or abduct, pets are despicable, and I am delighted that the legislation that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) has taken up, with the support of the Government, will make it far more straightforward to put the people who do this in jail, because that is what they deserve.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her good fortune in gaining her place in the ballot, and commend her for her wisdom in choosing this particular Bill. As she will know, the legislation was originally in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, and I am also delighted that she and the Government are honouring the commitment to legislate for these elements. I am confident that the Bill will fly through the House, although I am sure that both the Government and my hon. Friend will be listening to what is said about some of the finer points.

During the time when the kept animals Bill was paused, there was a significant public outcry about what should be done in respect of cats. As my hon. Friend put it so articulately in her speech, there is a slight difference between the natural instinctive attributes of different pets, but I am pleased that Government lawyers and DEFRA officials have worked hard to establish how cats can be included in the Bill.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) mentioned the taskforce. People may not realise this, but for a conviction for theft there is quite a high bar to prove that someone has been permanently deprived of a particular item. That is especially true of a living item. I am pleased that we are taking this forward. The offence of pet abduction, and the potential criminal sentence of up to five years’ imprisonment, will provide an effective deterrent.

There has been discussion about a number of different police forces. I commend Suffolk police. There has been a significant increase in pet theft in the last few years, as people seek to steal much-valued pets that can be sold. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald)—he is not in his place, but I am sure he will be back—was right to mention the impact of organised crime. It is perhaps not on the scale of national organised crime, but certainly local crime gangs are taking pets and then transporting them right around the country. I pay tribute to Sussex police, who found Willow, a dog that had been stolen in Suffolk, eight months later in Surrey—thanks to their activities, she was reunited with her owner.

People have talked about the Westminster dog show and others. My beloved Rizzo finally got a “highly commended” award in the Westminster dog of the year show a few years ago—just for perseverance, I think; she was old and blind. Sadly, she passed away not long after. We know—that is why we are here—that the British people care extensively about the value of their pets. That is why I think it wise to add to the legislation a power to react, through regulation, to what is happening with criminal gangs, giving us the opportunity to have more pets later. The precise details of the issues that hon. Members have raised may need further consideration.

I am glad that this consideration has been given to the issue. I recall a stray dog in the village where I used to live in Hampshire. It was just wandering around, and we took it in. Like a responsible person, I wanted to find out where the dog had come from. I made an initial inquiry at the village shop, but they did not know, and I then went to the vet. I was a bit surprised when the vet said that they were not allowed to tell me who the owner was. I understand in a wider sense, but I found it rather frustrating that I was limited in how I could connect with the owner to reunite them with their pet—I was not even allowed to know whether the dog was registered to somebody in my village. An officer from the council came and took the dog.

I wish that I had known the full details of section 150 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, under which I could have kept the dog—at the time, I was told, “Absolutely not.” I was concerned, of course, that if the owner was not found after seven days, the dog could be euthanised. I felt that I could probably have had more effect. In that regard—having now read the legislation in detail as a Member of Parliament—I would probably have wanted to hold on to the dog, perhaps for 24 hours, just to take it to the pub or whatever. It turned out that somebody at the pub that night had lost their dog, and I was able to refer them and they were reunited the following morning. I am grateful that the Bill considers the genuine kindness of people who want to try to reunite dogs with their owners.

I have given notice to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and the Government that I will table one amendment. I want to change the commencement date in clause 6(1). At the moment, the Bill relies on more regulations coming through to bring it into effect. I understand that officials might want time to get guidance and so on, but I do not think that necessary. I strongly recommend that my hon. Friend changes that in Committee—I do not want to wait until Report to change it—and that some deal be done, whether for two or three months. That would be perfectly reasonable in order to ensure that once we have passed the Bill, it is passed in the Lords without many amendments.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that issue. Of course, the normal convention is that the Bill would come into force two months after Royal Assent, which is a reasonable period of time. We could delete that clause or add something to allow a slightly longer period, but she makes a powerful point.

Storm Henk

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his statement and for very promptly triggering the flood recovery network. I note that there are a number of local authorities adjacent to mine in Swindon. I want to take this opportunity to ask him to meet me to discuss whether smaller unitary authorities such as Swindon sometimes miss out. The number of incidents might be smaller, but I can tell him from my own experience as an active constituency MP that the impact is just as great.

[Robbie Moore]

Absolutely, and I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his question. Regardless of the size of a local authority, what matters is that we protect our constituents from flooding. I am more than happy to meet him and his neighbouring colleagues to ensure that, as a Government, we deliver on protecting as many homes and businesses as possible.

Storm Babet: Flooding

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Monday 23rd October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

First, we are far from complacent; quite the reverse. The hon. Member suggested that we need to be better prepared; that is what our whole flood budget is geared up to doing. That is why we doubled it to £5.2 billion. It was £2.6 billion, and it is now £5.2 billion, with all the associated flooding schemes that that is delivering—both hard infrastructure and a range of nature-based solutions, which are a high proportion of many of our schemes. I would have thought that she for one would have recognised that, given the £42 million invested in Hull—her own constituency. I visited the scheme in 2022—I invited her but do not think that she came to the launch—and the people I met could not have expressed more wholeheartedly what it had done for Hull and how it had protected properties and businesses. It is now attracting businesses to Hull that previously would not have come as it was too risky for flooding. That is a prime demonstration of what the Government are doing.

On asset maintenance, we continue to invest in all our flood and coastal defence maintenance and have dedicated an extra £22 million to maintenance in the current review period of 2024-25. Of course, checking assets and keeping them well maintained is a critical part of the Environment Agency’s work. Virtually 94% of major flood and coastal erosion risk management assets are in their target condition. In addition, when the warnings began a week ago, the Environment Agency and local authorities went out to check assets, clear culverts and drains and do all the small things that make such a big difference to whether there is or is not flooding in our local areas.

On planning applications, the Environment Agency gives advice when there is any suggestion of flood risk, and 96% of all planning applications complied with Environment Agency advice on flood risk. It is important that there are strong safeguards in place where there is flood risk, and there are, but of course planning departments have to decide whether to take note of the Environment Agency’s advice. We are working hard with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on this very issue—I see the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young), in his place alongside me—as it is critical to protecting our island.

I would have thought the hon. Lady would have welcomed the Cabinet Office meetings. We already have exactly what she is asking for, as we do have a national flood response centre with the Cabinet Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and various Government Departments engaging. That was set up on Wednesday, and the Met Office information and the warnings that had begun fed into its meetings—that is why information was able to go out to people. If we can do more and keep more people safe, we will always do that. That is why we have taken note of the incidents. When it is safe to do so, we will review particular things to see whether we can improve people’s safety even more.

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her statement. The wider consequences of sudden torrential rainfall, which is happening much more frequently, are being clearly seen in constituencies and communities such as mine. I was dealing with the aftermath on Friday.

There are two observations to draw. First, there is the need for long-term planning with regard to providing more retention ponds and understanding the flow of watercourses in local areas such as mine. Secondly, short-term culvert clearing and drain clearing operations clearly need to get better. Will she meet me to discuss how we can better co-ordinate local authorities and the Environment Agency, as well as the utility companies, which also have a responsibility in this area?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for those astute observations. He is right about the more frequent incidence. This is linked to climate change—there is no doubt about that. We are focusing exactly on the whole flow of water through our plan for water, working at a catchment basis, which will be so important in future. It is local authorities’ role to keep culverts clean and all of that, so I will volunteer the Minister from DLUHC to meet him to discuss that important issue.

Water Industry: Financial Resilience

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Member is right that Thames Water supplies an enormous part of our population. Ofwat has been working closely with Thames Water, as it does all water companies, and the Government work with Ofwat, giving it our strategic policy statement on what its priorities will be. Overall, the water companies are considered resilient, and much work is going on behind the scenes with Thames Water to ensure that customers will not be affected. If necessary, there is a process in place to move us to the next stage.

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Swindon residents will be concerned about the future of Thames Water, so I ask my hon. Friend please to keep me and colleagues updated on any issues relating to that. Underlying this issue, Labour’s model will clearly never work—we must understand that only the private sector will be able to invest. [Interruption.] Labour Members bleat now, but they did nothing about it when they were in government. Is the point not that where we have in effect a private monopoly, the regulator must be as effective as possible? Will my hon. Friend do everything possible to ensure that Ofwat is working in the full interests of customers? Aspects of its operation do not seem to pass that test.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend. Thames Water is a big water company that delivers on a wide scale. Ofwat is working very closely with the company on its plans, which will be looked over and submitted, and accounts will be submitted in due course, so that we have a resilient pathway. Customers, including his constituents, should rest assured that both their water and wastewater supplies will be protected.

Northern Ireland Border

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

I would express it slightly differently, but would say this: the rationale Minister Poots has advanced is that the EU audit that took place and whose findings were published at the end of last year raised some issues that he believed were contentious and therefore potentially a threat to community relations. Therefore, in his view, part of the threshold test for authorisation to be required by the Northern Ireland Executive has been met. He therefore believes that there should be a discussion; to date, under the power-sharing agreement there has not been agreement that it should be discussed, and that has led to the current state of affairs. So it is too early to say what the legal position is. I know it is the position of Edwin Poots that it is not lawful to continue these checks without the express authority of the Northern Ireland Executive. Others may take a different view, but the UK Government very much hope the Northern Ireland Executive can find a resolution to this, and for our part, as the ones who stand behind the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and are responsible for it and for protecting it, and as the ones who are responsible for international negotiations, we will continue to endeavour through the negotiations with the EU to find an enduring solution.

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend rightly characterises this as a devolved matter, and the Government, far from making a U-turn, have been very clear and consistent about it. However, the international law dimension of this and the obligations of the United Kingdom Government are also very clear. Would it not have been better for the Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive to have told my right hon. Friend before he decided to make this directive because of the obvious sensitivities and the vital importance of allowing my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to conduct her negotiations with Commissioner Šefčovič in as smooth and unimpeded a way as possible? We will deal with this through negotiation and resolution at international level, and therefore we need to avoid the elephant traps that unilateral action present.

[George Eustice]

My right hon. and learned Friend knows from experience that the UK Government have considerable patience for negotiation in order to reach agreement and sensible pragmatic settlements in these areas. He is absolutely right that we seek and would prefer a negotiated reform of the way the protocol is interpreted, and that is what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is working on, but I hope I have given an explanation on a number of occasions now about the perspective that Edwin Poots brings to this and why he has acted in the way that he has. I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will also understand that there is a difference between things we are responsible for in international law and things a devolved Administration are responsible for implementing under the devolved devolution settlement that we have.

Water Industry

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who spoke with passion and real understanding about what is a complex issue. The water industry was privatised nearly a quarter of a century ago now, and it is reaching a crossroads. While I agree with my hon. Friend about the levels of investment that privatisation has delivered—which is well in excess of £100 billion in the last 25 years—we are reaching a stage where we now need to look for different solutions. My hon. Friend touched on a number of them in his remarks, and I was very impressed by his description of City analysts and their attitude to the regulated sector, and the challenge of gearing. As he said, the high level of gearing is causing inflexibility. That is leading to unimaginative solutions to the problems that beset companies such as Thames Water, which serves not only the London area, but the area I have the honour of representing: Swindon.

My hon. Friend mentioned abstraction from the Kennet, and I should commend the Save Water Swindon campaign, which is all about encouraging householders to be sensible in the use of water. It has had a marked impact and continues to this day. Indeed, only a couple of weeks ago I was helping Thames Water promote that campaign.

All that is detail, however, but today’s debate presents us with an opportunity to look more broadly at the challenge facing the industry. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for accepting the application made in my name and that of my hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) and for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith). There is quite a geographical spread between our constituencies, which shows that this is an issue for the whole country, not just the area I represent.

Although cost-of-living issues are very much the stuff of current political debate, the issues raised today long predate the current political spat. This debate has to be about value for money for local consumers and businesses and finding better ways for our water industry to operate.

Despite the interesting contribution of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), who is no longer in his place, there is no doubt that 25 years ago privatisation was the right course of action. There was no alternative for the industry if we were to seek and secure new forms of capital investment. The achievements of Bazalgette and the Victorians lasted us for a long time, but we have by now reached a stage where renewal and reinvestment are essential.

Now, after nearly a decade of continued price rises, householders are rightly asking themselves, “Why us?” In the context of the current monopoly, who can they turn to? The situation is worse than the Henry Ford scenario of “You can have any colour you like, as long as it’s black,” because there is nowhere else for consumers to go.

I understand why the regional model was adapted from the previous nationalised structure. In many ways that made sense in terms of bringing together infrastructure with water supply, and I can think of the example of Severn Trent with its assets over the border in Wales, but I ask this question: is the regionalised model sustainable for the long term? Is there not a better way of dealing with the industry?

[Mr Redwood]

When we debated this, I was the one who said, “You must have competition and you can have competition in water, as in other things.” I lost that battle. Privatisation solved the capital shortage but, apart from that, it has left all the evils of the monopoly in the nationalised business—a lack of quality, a lack of choice, high costs and a lack of innovation.

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that, and his role in all this back in the late 1980s must not be underestimated. As he rightly says, now is the time for us to draw an analogy with other industries such as telecoms, where infrastructure and supply are dealt with separately. Giving consumers the right to switch suppliers is essential if we are to drive through an improvement in service.

[Thomas Docherty]

I heard the hon. Gentleman making this argument earlier on the BBC. For the interest of the House, will he clarify whether he also believes that the water companies should be able to disconnect a customer who refuses to pay?

[Mr Buckland]

Disconnection is very much a last resort. We need to make sure that we do not put consumers off from switching for fear of disconnection that may be unjustified. Not only is water a resource for the country, but it has huge and essential social utility. It is one of the essentials of life, so I quite accept that we must have a social dimension to all this. That is why moving towards a system where we have more social tariffs to help the more vulnerable members of society would be a good thing.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am most grateful for that half-explanation. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that unless there is disconnection, the market simply cannot work? If we are going to have competition for households, we would have to have disconnection.

[Mr Buckland]

I do not follow that argument; it does not apply in other sectors and I do not see why it needs to apply in this one. Disconnection would not assist consumers when making that switch because they may well be deterred by the fear of disconnection, so I do not accept that argument.

[Charlie Elphicke]

My hon. Friend is completely right to reject the outrageous suggestion made by the shadow Minister that there should be the power to disconnect householders. Does he recall whether the Labour party, when it was in government, had any form of social tariffs or anything like what it has been calling for today? Or is this something where the Labour party has woken up and jumped on the bandwagon?

[Mr Buckland]

I hope that this debate will continue in a spirit of looking to the long-term future of the industry, rather than descending into anything approaching point scoring. I do not think that is worthy of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) and I am sure that we will not see such a descent in his contribution, because this issue predates this Government.

As I was explaining, price rises started to increase significantly in the middle of the past decade. The average Thames Water household bill was £254 in 2005-06 and it has now risen to £354. One of my constituents sent me his own list of increases, where he recorded that in 2005-06 his bill increased by a whopping 21% and that since that time his bills have increased by 84%. So we can see why consumers and residents are asking, “Why us? Why do we have to bear the burden?”

I am pleased that Ofwat has issued a preliminary decision to disallow Thames Water’s request to raise prices by £29 for customers’ bills with effect from 2014-15. Thames Water said that it wished to spread that increase over several years but, as Ofwat has said, Thames Water has produced insufficient evidence to justify such a rise. It is unique this year in terms of the other water companies and the issue is compounded by the prospect of indefinite rises of up to £80 for my residents in order to pay for the £4.1 billion Thames tideway tunnel. I am in no way an opponent of bold and imaginative infrastructure schemes. They represent the best spirit of what inspired the Victorians to create the infrastructure on which, in many ways, we rely today. Buildings such as this place were the result of such boldness. It is right, however, that we should ask the legitimate question about whether dealing with the problems experienced through the discharge of sewage into the River Thames is worth that £4.1 billion.

I have no doubt that there are serious issues with pollution, but air pollution in London affects more people than the issue that the tunnel seeks to address. Other proposals, such as those for sustainable drainage, would be a more incremental way of dealing with the problem than inflicting this large hit on consumers.

[Mr Charles Walker]

What does my hon. Friend suggest that London does with its faeces if we do not put them into the Thames or build a tunnel to take them away from the Thames? Where will it all go?

[Mr Buckland]

I am not saying that there is not a problem, but that there are alternative ways of dealing with it through sustainable drainage. Earlier, my hon. Friend made an intervention about the need to build more infrastructure. I heard what he said, but to my way of thinking the Abingdon reservoir was the wrong response to the problems that still besets Thames Water—that is, the massive leakages. Thames Water is still losing 646 million litres of water a day.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend and his colleagues on securing the debate. Does he also agree that there is some question about where the figures of £70 or £80 resulting from the tideway tunnel come from? If we divide the £4 billion by the total number of customers in the area, it seems to come to a somewhat lower number. Are there not also questions about exactly how it is financed and whether it can be done more cheaply?

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend is right to suggest that the breakdown of the arithmetic for individuals does not seem to add up. Thames Water intends to use a separate corporate vehicle to build this entity, but we must ask why the bill payer must bear the brunt of the problem.

Let me return to the question of leakages because the figures are quite startling. Although Thames Water is making progress in bringing the leakages down, and I give it credit for that, the figures are pretty disturbing. Last year, it was reported that Thames Water was losing 665 million litres of water a day, a leak rate of 25.7%. That was five times higher than the 5% that would have been saved by a hosepipe ban. The leaks would fill Wembley stadium every 36 hours.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Would my hon. Friend care to elaborate on that for those who call for nationalisation? Is it not true that the state of the water industry and the state of the pipes the water runs through were caused by the lack of maintenance that happened when they were in Government hands? Since they have been in private hands, the investment has been put in to try to rectify that appalling problem.

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend is right that the problem would probably be considerably worse had we left things as they were and expected the Government, with their declining pot, to invest and deal with leakages. The problems, however, remain and although Thames Water is working to try to deal with them, I believe that the company should concentrate on leakages before it advocates vast reservoir projects such as the one supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker).

It is not just Thames that has a problem of leakages. It probably has the most serious problem, but other companies such as United Utilities and Severn Trent also have considerable leakages. The most recent figures I have from Ofwat show that United Utilities is losing 457 million litres a day and Severn Trent is losing 441 million.

The Water Bill has been mentioned. The Bill is a good first step. It will be the first reform of the industry since privatisation, and it will bring choice for businesses, charities and the public sector, but as other hon. Members have said, we should be going further to allow that choice to be extended to residents and household consumers. I am glad to hear that the Bill will allow for a more joined-up approach to the water supply network, thereby in some ways dealing with the regionalisation issue that continues to bedevil the infrastructure. I am glad that there will be further improvements to the Ofwat regulatory system.

I am looking for a greater emphasis on developing social tariffs. How that is to be done will be a matter for detailed discussion, and while Government guidance, which has been welcomed, has already been issued about concessionary schemes for community groups, it is now up to the industry to act swiftly on social tariffs and to ensure that those who are the most vulnerable and who, like all of us, need access to a basic staff of life, can have that access without the fear of disconnection that was mentioned by the Opposition spokesman.

As I said, this is an issue of not only household and local significance but national resonance. I shall not repeat some of the points that were raised by hon. Members about excessive boardroom pay, rather exotic tax arrangements and capital expenditure, but it is important to note, looking at the figures based on current prices, that in real terms gross capital expenditure by the four major water companies in England and Wales has fluctuated and is on a downward path. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury spoke eloquently about the cyclical nature of investment, which is hardly a solid foundation for attracting the much needed future and further investment in the water industry. While it is right to say that the Ofwat regime—Ofwat is currently looking at the 2015-20 price regime—is an appropriate exercise of regulatory power, we need to try and get through the cyclical problem that is causing the inflexibility in the industry that he talked about.

Today’s debate is a chance not only to make an important contribution to the ongoing discussion about the cost of living, but to look forward to the Water Bill, to ensure that we take the opportunity to get that piece of legislation right for the market, and to remember that value for money for businesses, and for the people we represent, must be at the heart of our deliberations and discussions today. We owe it to them to ensure that water bills are priced competitively, that the service is efficient and that there is a real sense of responsibility for the people that the water companies serve. If we help water companies along that road, we will have done the people whom we represent at least some service today.

Animal Welfare (Exports)

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Laura Sandys]

There are issues about the EU, and there are issues about the competent authority. The competent authority in this instance is the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and it needs to ensure that we have a gold standard for inspections, enforcement and licensing.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

On the point about enforcement, my hon. Friend might be aware that article 26.6 of European Council regulation No. 1/ 2005 gives member states the power temporarily to prohibit the use of transportation in the case of

“repeated or serious infringements of this Regulation…even if the transporter or the means of transport is authorised by another Member State”.

Would she therefore acknowledge that a power exists within the regulation to take unilateral action?

[Laura Sandys]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s great knowledge of EU regulations. I will come to that point in a moment. It is crucial that the existing powers are aggressively exercised in this trade, and the first challenge that I shall throw to the Minister, which I am sure he will welcome, is that he should use his good offices and his political will to ensure that we raise standards right across Europe.

The second priority for me and my local residents is that we seek to ban live animal exports. The fact that there are few benefits to the trade is illustrated by the significant drop in the number of live animals being traded out. The problem is that our farmers are not being properly paid for the food they produce. My understanding, from talking to representatives of the National Farmers Union, is that this is a marginal trade undertaken by some farmers who can get a better price for their animals on the continent. It is crucial that farmers are properly paid for their work and for their investment in animals. We need to ensure that we are building the right levels of value into the food supply chain, and that we do not undercut certain stages of our food production.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2012 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

7. What steps the Electoral Commission plans to take on voter registration in areas where it is low.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)]

The Electoral Commission’s research has identified some categories of people who are less likely to be registered, including those in private rented accommodation, those who have recently moved house, those aged 18 to 35, and certain minority ethnic groups. The commission directs its public awareness activities towards those groups. However, it encourages not just electoral registration officers but all colleagues who take a close interest in the matter to do all that they can to deal with the issue of low voter registration.

[Mr Buckland]

We in Swindon are lucky enough to have dedicated electoral registration officers, but performance across the country is patchy. We have been hearing of the possibility of enhanced powers for the Electoral Commission. How quickly can those powers be awarded in order to ensure that we obtain the highest possible level of electoral registration throughout the country?

[Mr Streeter]

My hon. Friend has raised an important point. As he says, the performance of electoral registration officers around the country can be patchy. The Electoral Commission works with EROs up and down the land to try to improve their performance, but the process would be enhanced if the Government gave the commission additional powers. When that will happen lies in the hands of the Government, but I am sure that Ministers have listened carefully to this exchange of views.