Water Supply in Kent

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

I apologise for the untimely interruption earlier, Mr Twigg— if I had been in the Chair, I would have been shouting at me. I wanted to open my mobile phone because at half-past 4 this afternoon a lady from Herne Bay texted me to say:

“Sewage is being discharged into Herne Bay from a combined sewage overflow”.

That is a common occurrence, and most Members present who represent coastal seats will have had messages like that over and over again. We can go around this circuit as many times as we like; we went around it last Wednesday, and then again on Monday, so I suspect that the Minister will get fed up listening to a cracked record.

Yet again, I have to highlight the fact that we are building hundreds and hundreds of houses in our coastal towns and hinterland, for which there is no water supply and no adequate sewerage. I learned today from one of my excellent local councillors in Dover, Martin Porter, that Southern Water is resisting a planning application for a village, simply because it cannot provide a facility to deal with the sewage the little estate will generate, any more than South East Water can supply the water that will be needed. Yet, as we have discussed in the last few days, the water companies have a statutory duty to provide water to every house built and—Southern Water is the sewage authority for both the areas I have mentioned—to dispose of the sewage, but they simply cannot do it.

Yet again, I make this point: will the Minister please take on board the need to ensure that the water companies are statutory consultees for all planning applications, so that we get a clear steer as to whether water supplies and sewage facilities are available, before yet more houses are built?

Water Companies

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend for his passionate work on this issue. I know how much he cares about the damage that over-abstraction is doing to our environment and to nature. On the water delivery taskforce, we have Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers and Treasury representatives all looking at how we can make the fastest and most effective change to our water system. They look particularly at water infrastructure because, as has been highlighted already, one of the problems is that we have been unable to build the infrastructure we need, which is resulting in damage to the environment now.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Since Mr Speaker allowed me to ask an urgent question on Wednesday last week, to which the Minister helpfully responded, it will not surprise her to know that I have received quite a number of public comments concerning the performance of South East Water, most of which are not repeatable before the watershed.

Two issues clearly have come to light and struck a chord. First, it really is time that the water companies were allowed to act as consultees in planning applications, because we are building house after house after house without saying where the water is going to come from, and of course the water companies have a statutory duty to provide it. The second point that has come through loud and clear underscores something that the Minister said to me, which is that it really is time that every new house built had a grey water system, because we are pouring water that we cannot afford to waste literally down the drain.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for this question, and for his question last week as well. As I mentioned last week, the water delivery taskforce looks at planning. It is looking jointly with MHCLG and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at where we are building homes, whether we have the right water and what water infrastructure is needed. There has been some retrofitting of properties in Cambridge to make them more water efficient, but the right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point about the use of grey water. That is definitely on my agenda.

South East Water: Disruption of Supply

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): Will the Secretary of State for the Environment make a statement following the disruption of water supplies throughout the area served by South East Water during the spring recess?

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

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for asking this question. I will update the House on the water supply disruption in Kent, and I want to begin by expressing my sympathy for those affected by the disruption. Being without water is distressing at any time, but particularly during a period of hot weather, alongside school revision and examinations. This is now the third major outage affecting South East Water customers in recent months, and it is simply not acceptable.

South East Water reported that thousands of customers were impacted by supply disruptions over the course of the incident, and I am pleased that normal water supply has now been restored. I met the interim chair and senior operational staff twice during the course of the incident, including on Sunday, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs team met them daily to hold them to account for the incident and to request that they set out by the end of this week how they will compensate customers.

Water supply disruption causes significant cost to businesses and impacts the most vulnerable in society. I have heard of a 100-year-old lady without water, and a care home in Cranbrook using wet wipes to keep their residents clean. This is simply unacceptable, and the company must take urgent action.

I thank all those working in the Kent local resilience forum, the local authorities, the health and social care partners, and civil servants in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and DEFRA for their hard work to support those affected. I am also grateful to operational staff and volunteers who worked on the ground to restore supplies and provide alternative water.

A reliable supply of clean water is one of the foundations of a healthy, functioning society. The situation demands further bold action to deliver fundamental long-term reform, and that is why we are delivering whole-scale reform to the water sector. Through our clean water Bill, we will create a new single, powerful regulator, giving us for the first time a clear system-wide view of company performance and the tools to intervene more quickly when companies fall short. We will put consumers first by introducing a water ombudsman, ensuring that customers have a stronger voice and clearer routes to redress. We have already passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which introduced the toughest sentencing powers ever applied to lawbreaking water company executives, and introduced powers to ban unjustified bonuses.

It is vital that South East Water and all water companies deliver on improvements to their infrastructure, but most of all, they must continue to improve their ability to maintain water supplies to their customers, whatever the weather.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Roger Gale]

I thank the Minister for her obvious and genuine concern, and for the measures that she has sought to take. I join her in thanking the very many organisations that have sought to help us through this problem, and I include in that the employees on the ground at South East Water.

Mr Speaker, you know that thousands of people in Herne Bay in my constituency and thousands more in Whitstable, in the constituency represented by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), were left without water during the four hottest days of the year so far. That is totally inexcusable and totally unacceptable. Not only were households disrupted, but at the very time when they should have been having a glorious start to their season, guest houses, hotels, restaurants and pubs were shut, care homes had frightful problems, and a doctor’s surgery lost consultations, because they did not have water.

There is no quick fix. The Broad Oak reservoir should have been built 50 years ago. It will take 10 years if we start tomorrow, but we have to try to make sure that in the coming months, because there will be more hot weather, this does not happen for a fifth time across Kent.

Finally, I do believe that the water companies face a very real problem in the regulations as they stand. They are required by law to connect every new house to a supply, but they are not consultees in planning applications—we have to correct that. They have to be given a voice because they cannot spirit water out of thin air.

[Emma Hardy]

I share the right hon. Gentleman’s outrage at the situation. He is quite right to say that one of the answers is the reservoir, which will take a long time to build, but this is not just about the reservoir. It is also about desalination plants, and the need for more urgent action to tackle leakage; too much water is lost through leakage. Across Government, we are looking at building standards for new homes and at how we can make homes more water-efficient, because this is a big problem. I hope that I can offer the right hon. Gentleman some reassurance by telling him that the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority has been doing some mapping to identify areas of the country that have more acute water shortage problems and what we need to resolve them.

I asked the company, “What are the actions you can take now?” There is no excuse for poor communication; that is something it can fix overnight. It can also improve its relationship with the local resilience forum. That does not cost any money. It can look at its bulk supply deal with Southern Water—that is another action it can take. It can accelerate its work on leakage reduction—that is another action it can take. Fundamentally, though, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right: the answer is building reservoirs and having greater water storage across our country. Quite frankly, I think it is that we have a situation where we complain about the drought all through the summer and complain about the rain all through the winter, yet have no way of storing that water. I am urgently trying to change that.

Environmental Protection and Biodiversity

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He is making it clear that biodiversity and our natural environment are in complete crisis. Given that, would he agree that the slogan “Back the builders, not the blockers” is one of the worst slogans that the Labour party has ever come up with? People do care about local democracy, biodiversity and nature, so that slogan should be put in the bin, where it belongs—the recycling bin, of course.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. In the time available for this debate, that almost constitutes a speech. I had intended to say this after the hon. Gentleman moved the motion, but I had better say it now: please understand that any person who intervenes in this debate will be expected to stay until the end. It is not a case of speak and go.

[Chris Hinchliff]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. As I was saying, the ecosystem services—including water, food, clean air and critical resources—are all at risk. Even our soils, the very substance of growth, have lost around half their organic carbon, threatening the sustainability of our agriculture and our ability to keep our citizens fed.

More than that, however, the collapse of England’s biodiversity is a threat to our culture, national identity and one of the essential components of happiness. As iconic species continue to disappear from these islands, I wonder how many of us in this room will see a swallow or mayfly to herald summer this year?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. We are faced with a very difficult situation. I have to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 5.10 pm, which means, given the number of people on the speakers’ list, I am going to start with a time limit of two minutes. That may not get everybody in. I am not going to call anybody who has already intervened, for a start, and if anybody else feel like dropping out and intervening, I would welcome that. I do not normally do this, but it may help if I give Members the batting order as it stands at the moment: on the Opposition Benches, we have Danny Chambers, Olly Glover, Edward Morello, Tim Farron, John Milne, Roz Savage and Jim Shannon, and on the Government Benches, we have Barry Gardiner, Terry Jermy, Martin Rhodes, Michelle Welsh, Rachael Maskell, Tristan Osborne and Anna Gelderd. It is up to you how you play this, but I am going to stop calling Back-Bench Members at 5.10 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) was one of the finest on the environment that I have heard in this House for a long time. One day, the Government will see sense and he will become Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

I will cut most of what I wanted to say. The national security assessment, mentioned by my hon. Friend, says:

“Cascading risks of ecosystem degradation are likely to include geopolitical instability, economic insecurity, conflict migration and increased inter-state competition for resources.”

Why is that not the subject of a great debate in Parliament? Yesterday, we had the Prime Minister’s vital statement on Iran. The whole House sat in a packed Chamber to discuss the US bombing of that evil regime and the security implications for the world. Yet we have our own national security assessment telling us that global ecosystem degradation and collapse is one of the most serious threats to UK national security, and we still have had no debate on it.

The collapse of biodiversity over my lifetime is not a matter of spreadsheets. It is felt in silent fields that were once singing meadows, in poisoned waters that were once shimmering streams, in children who have grown up in a depleted world without knowing how much has been lost, or how abnormal is the world they inhabit. The monitoring and enforcement system currently in place under environmental regulators lacks capacity and is chronically poor.

Take our water sector: of the 2,778 serious pollution incidents reported in 2024, officials downgraded 98% as “minor incidents”, yet only 496 were actually attended or inspected before being downgraded. There can be no doubt that the regulatory system is as rotten as the pipes the water companies have abandoned since 1989. I welcome the Red Lines for Nature campaign as far as it goes, but that is scarcely far enough when it talks of no further weakening of environmental protections and no funding cuts to environmental bodies.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. Sorry, Mr Gardiner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I join other Members in congratulating the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) on this important debate. I, like many others, would love to speak about a whole host of things, but given the time constraints, I will just talk about chalk streams.

Chalk streams are globally rare ecosystems; there are approximately 200 in the world, and 85% of them are in England. They are internationally significant freshwater habitats and should be a conservation priority. In West Dorset, our chalk streams—the River Frome, Wraxall brook and West Compton stream—are in decline, alongside the salmon populations in them, because we have not had proper environmental protections or biodiversity being properly prioritised. The Rivers Trust sewage discharge map shows that the South Winterbourne was affected by storm overflows 223 times in 2020, for a total of more than 2,641 hours.

My proposal is that we introduce a blue flag style standard for chalk streams, mirroring coastal bathing water classifications—clear, public facing measures that are visible and easy to understand. Mandatory, regular testing and enforceable consequences for failure would help rebuild public trust and provide the transparency that people rightly demand.

Given that I have spoken far faster than I thought I would, I will also make a plea for the upcoming water White Paper to make water companies statutory consultees on all new planning projects, and to make rainwater harvesting mandatory on all new builds. Pre pipe solutions are the key to taking the strain off our sewerage system. The water White Paper is a fantastic opportunity for the Government to do those three things. If they do them, it will be brilliant for the public.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Three for the price of one! I call Martin Rhodes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)]

Nature underpins our wellbeing and our economy, and in South East Cornwall we truly understand that. Take the Cornish black bee: hardy, resilient and well suited to our Atlantic winds, it heads out to gather pollen even in unfavourable conditions, and that determination feels very familiar to Cornish people. The Cornish chough tells a similar story. Once lost from Cornwall, it returned in 2001, and its comeback shows that, with the right protection, species can recover.

I am proud to serve as a seagrass champion, because seagrasses are one of the most powerful natural climate solutions: they absorb and store carbon at a remarkable rate, soften wave energy and reduce coastal erosion—something extremely needed since the start of this year, as Cornwall has been battered by back-to-back storms that have severely impacted my region. Protecting seagrass meadows is a practical climate action and a sound economic policy.

In my local area, fishing and farming have shaped the economics of our villages and towns for generations. They rely on healthy soils, clean water and abundant seas, so clean water remains a priority. The proposal for designated bathing water in Lostwithiel is therefore very welcome, and I encourage residents to engage with the consultation on that before it closes at the end of the month. However, my constituents are rightly frustrated by the impact of sewage discharges, and confidence in South West Water has been undermined by a history of poor transparency. I call for decisive action to improve its operations, alongside meaningful engagement with local residents, businesses and me.

On Dartmoor, biodiversity and traditional land management are closely linked. Will the Minister provide further information on how the sustainable farming incentive could play a part in protecting the Dartmoor ponies, which were at risk under the previous Government? Finally, I ask her to continue to focus on rural and coastal areas that have long been forgotten and to use Cornwall and our unique natural heritage as a pilot area in future Government schemes. I look forward to working with her in Cornwall in the future.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. You have five minutes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Roger Gale Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. He will have noticed that we published the PFAS—perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances—plan earlier this week, which looks at the issues of chemical pollution and how we can tackle it more effectively. We recognise the serious concerns at Tideswell brook. Through our water White Paper we are reforming waste water regulation and enabling earlier interventions. I will be keeping a close eye on the situation as it develops.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

On 8 January, the United States Secretary of the Interior wrote to the Secretary of State on behalf of the big game hunting industry, asking her to ensure that the Government would abandon their commitment to the ban on importing hunting trophies. In her reply, will she give a robust indication that this Government are committed to that ban?

[Emma Reynolds]

I thank the right hon. Member for that question. We are committed to banning trophy hunting. It is a manifesto commitment, and we will take it forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Roger Gale Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Now for somebody who will take up the offer of a swim—Sir Roger Gale.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Will the Minister reassure the House that the shocking release of microplastic pellets into the seas off the channel coast is a one-off and that it has not affected and will not affect any of the beaches around the rest of the Kent coast?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising such an important issue. I share his anger at this appalling pollution incident. The studies into exactly where the plastic pellets might end up are ongoing, but I would be more than happy to keep him up to date so that he knows what is expected to happen and when. The immediate priority is to address the environmental damage and to minimise further impacts. I have been speaking with Southern Water and the Environment Agency about this and would be happy to keep the right hon. Gentleman and the House up to date. I reassure him and the rest of the House that we find this incident unacceptable, and we will do everything we can to prevent anything like this from happening again.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

For several years now, the CPS has maintained a high and steady charge rate of around 80%, and a conviction rate of 75%. This Government are taking radical action to ensure that more cases come into the system and progress through it. We have introduced Raneem’s law, which embeds domestic abuse specialists in 999 control rooms, and have launched domestic abuse protection orders, which go further than any other order to protect victims.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Will the Solicitor General discuss with the Crown Prosecution Service and the Home Secretary how best the Metropolitan police may be encouraged to expedite their inquiry into the crimes of those who aided and abetted Mohamed Fayed, so that—for the sake of those who suffered violence and rape at this hands—they can be brought to book?

[The Solicitor General]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a really serious and important case; I am sure the thoughts of the House are with the victims. As he is aware, I cannot speak to cases in which there are live criminal investigations, but I am grateful to him for raising this extremely important issue, which I and other ministerial colleagues are following closely.

Independent Water Commission

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Before I call the Secretary of State to make his statement, I place on the record the fact that Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers were disappointed to see extensive coverage in the media this morning of Ministers’ responses to the Independent Water Commission, before the House has had the opportunity to consider the matter. It would be nice to think that the normal courtesies will be resumed.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have, of course, saved the bulk of my responses for you and the House this afternoon. With permission, I would like to update the House on the Government’s plans to reform the water sector.

The water industry is clearly failing. Our rivers, lakes and seas are polluted with record levels of sewage, and water pipes have been left to crumble into disrepair. I share customers’ fury at rising bills. Right now, hosepipe bans are in place across the country because not a single new reservoir has been built in over 30 years, and the lack of water infrastructure is blocking economic growth. Water companies have been allowed to profit at the expense of the British people when they should have been investing to fix our broken water pipes. They got away with this because of a broken regulatory system that has failed both customers and the environment. The public expressed their fury in last year’s general election and voted for change. That change will now come.

In just one year, we have put in place the building blocks for change. First, we restored accountability by giving the regulators more teeth and introducing a ban on unfair bonuses, severe and automatic penalties for breaking the law, and jail sentences for the most serious offences. Secondly, we are investing £104 billion of private sector funding to rebuild the water network, upgrading crumbling pipes, repairing leaks, building new sewage treatment works and digging out new reservoirs. It is the single biggest investment in the history of the water sector, and it allows me to make a new commitment to the country: this Government will cut water companies’ sewage pollution in half by the end of the decade. That is the most ambitious commitment ever made by any Government about water pollution, and it is just the start. Over a decade of national renewal, we will restore our rivers, lakes and seas to good health.

The third building block for change is today’s final report from Sir Jon Cunliffe’s Independent Water Commission. I express my thanks to Sir Jon, his officials, and all those who have contributed to this outstanding piece of work. I agree with Sir Jon that water regulation has been too weak, too complex, and ineffective. Having four separate regulators with overlapping and conflicting remits has failed both customers and the environment. Ofwat has failed to protect customers from water companies’ mismanagement of their hard-earned money, and it has failed to protect our waterways from record levels of pollution. Today, I can announce that this Labour Government will abolish Ofwat. We will bring water functions from four different regulators into one—a single powerful super-regulator responsible for the entire water sector, with the teeth it needs to enforce the high standards that the public rightly demand.

The new regulator will stand firmly on the side of customers, investors and the environment and prevent the abuses of the past. For customers, it will oversee investment and upgrade work, so that hard-working British families are never again hit by the shocking bill hikes that we saw last year as customers were left to pay the price of failure by the previous Government. For investors, it will provide the clarity and direction required for a strong partnership between Government, the sector and investors to attract billions of pounds of new funding. For the environment, it will reduce all forms of pollution to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good. We will work closely with the Welsh Government to devolve the economic regulation of water to Wales.

I will publish a White Paper this autumn giving the Government’s full response to the Independent Water Commission’s final report and launching a consultation on it. Following that, I will bring forward a new water reform Bill early in the lifetime of this Parliament. Ofwat will remain in place during the transition to the new regulator, and I will ensure that it provides the right leadership to oversee the current price review and investment plan during that time. To provide clarity during this period, I will issue an interim strategic policy statement to Ofwat and give ministerial directions to the Environment Agency setting out our expectations and requirements. We will publish a transition plan as part of our full Government response in the autumn.

Today, we are immediately taking forward a number of Sir Jon’s recommendations. First, we will establish a new statutory water ombudsman—a single, free service to help customers resolve complaints such as incorrect bills, leaking pipes or water supply failures. The new ombudsman will have the legal powers to protect customers and will bring the water dispute resolution process in line with other utilities, such as energy. It is part of the Government’s ambition to put customers at the heart of water regulation.

Secondly, we will end the era of water companies marking their own homework. We will end operator self-monitoring and transition to open monitoring to increase transparency and help restore public trust. Water companies are already required to publish data on some sewage spills within one hour. We will roll out real-time monitoring across the wastewater system, and all this data will be made publicly available online. That will ensure that the regulator and, importantly, the public have the power to hold water companies fully accountable.

Thirdly, we commit to including a regional element within the new regulator to ensure greater local involvement in water planning. By moving to a catchment-based model for water system planning, we can tackle all sources of pollution entering waterways, so that they can be cleaned up more effectively and more quickly. This will ensure—for the first time—that water infrastructure investment plans align with spatial planning to support faster regional economic growth. The lack of water infrastructure that held back development around Cambridge and Oxford for so long will not happen again.

The new regulatory framework will recognise the risks investors take and, if they meet their obligations, they will see a fair, stable return on their investment. Just last week, I signed the Government’s new water skills pledge to make sure that the sector has the skills and workforce it needs to deliver this vast investment.

This Labour Government were elected to clean up water pollution and ensure that unacceptable bill hikes can never happen again. We now have all the building blocks in place to make that happen. We are establishing a new partnership based on effective regulation, where water companies, investors, communities and the Government will work together to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

I was, of course, on the television show in question with the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). I think he told us six times that he had no idea—well, that much we knew. It is this Government who have a plan to clean up our waterways. We have put in place the building blocks for change, and that allows me to stand before this House and commit that by 2030 we will reduce sewage pollution from water companies by 50% as we move towards a decade of national renewal in order to clean up our waterways for good.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and Sir Jon Cunliffe for his report and for his work in producing it. The Liberal Democrats have long argued for the abolition of Ofwat, and for the creation of a new, consolidated and powerful regulator. In fact, we put it to the Public Bill Committee and it was supported by neither the Labour party nor the Conservative party, but today’s proposal seems to include doing just that, so we strongly welcome the statement. It is a reminder to the wonderful volunteers and water campaigners across the country that their work is absolutely worth while and has made a huge difference. My message to them is: thank you so much and keep going, because we still do not know the details and the nature of the new regulator, and we still see no sign in the report of any plan to tackle the toxic nature of the water industry’s ownership structure.

Why is there no plan to change the structure of the industry itself? Even the best regulator in the world will fail if water companies are still owned by those who care nothing for the quality of the lakes, rivers and seas, and who care only about making as much profit as possible in return for very little investment. Is it really acceptable to ask bill payers for a 30% rise when there is no guarantee that the water company will not be siphoning off huge chunks of that money in dividends, pay rises or bonuses? Why is there nothing in the statement that will truly empower the volunteers, citizen scientists and water campaigners I just mentioned? Why are we not giving places on water company boards to the likes of the Eden Rivers Trust, the South Lakes Rivers Trust, Save Windermere, the Clean River Kent Campaign, Surfers Against Sewage and Windrush Against Sewage Pollution, known as WASP? Why is there no mention of monitoring the volume of sewage spills as well as the number of incidences, and no mention of including legally binding pollution reduction targets?

Although the statement is welcome and we rightly celebrate the Liberal Democrat campaign wins that it is full of, our job as a constructive and effective Opposition is to scrutinise the detail and to carry on campaigning to clean up our waterways and our water industry too. That is exactly what we shall do.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. It is apparent that a very considerable number of Back-Bench Members wish to participate in this statement. There are two further statements to follow before we come to the main business of the day, which is also very important, so I urge colleagues on both sides of the House to ask brief questions and not make statements.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

Residents in Peterborough and across Anglian Water’s catchment area will welcome the statement and the bold action taken. They know all too well that the water system is broken. One of the issues we on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee have looked at is the need for water infrastructure. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the drive and determination he has shown today to fix the water system will also drive forward the Fens reservoir and the infrastructure we need in the east of England? After a generation of delay on reservoirs, we now have the opportunity to succeed. Can he tell us that this will stay on track, and we will get the jobs and the water resources we need in the east?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

Yes, we are looking at what recommendations we can bring forward early; others will be part of the consultation.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the ever-patient Peter Swallow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

I think my hon. Friend has already done the job for me.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

That concludes the statement. I thank the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State for their presence throughout a lengthy session.

Animal Welfare in Farming

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered animal welfare standards in farming.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I am grateful for the opportunity to hold this debate to give a voice to the voiceless here in Parliament.

The treatment of farm animals in the UK is a reflection of our values as a society, yet millions of animals endure lives of confinement, pain and neglect. I am proud to have convened this debate on an issue that has been very close to my heart since I was old enough to understand: animal welfare. The debate could not be more timely, with a number of grotesque infringements of legal and accepted norms exposed in recent undercover footage. From the mistreatment of piglets to the rampant impunity found in a few of Scotland’s salmon farms, shocking incidents have rightly caused public outrage.

However, we must be clear: these are sadly not isolated incidents, but a symptom of policy and enforcement failings in our food and farming systems. The way we treat farmed animals is not only the biggest animal protection issue we face here in the UK, but deeply entwined with the climate crisis, nature loss and the viability of our food systems. It speaks to a moral failing, a disconnection from the suffering hidden behind supermarket shelves. Ultimately, we need a food system that recognises the need to reduce demand, raise legal baselines and support better farming systems.

I am pleased to note that today’s debate has been linked to the petition titled “End the use of cages and crates for all farmed animals”, which has now surpassed 100,000 signatures and calls on the UK Government to

“ban all cages for laying hens as soon as possible”

and to extend the ban to all cages and crates “for all farmed animals”, including farrowing crates for sows, individual calf pens and cages for birds. Despite the ban on barren battery cages in 2012, about 10.6 million hens —28% of the UK laying flock—are still confined in so-called enriched cages, which severely restrict natural behaviours such as wing flapping, perching and dust bathing, and contribute to frustration, bone weakness and chronic protection issues.

I congratulate the petition sponsor, Dame Joanna Lumley, and commend her courage and compassion. Her lifelong dedication to humanitarian and environmental causes is matched in this case by her powerful advocacy for animals, who cannot speak for themselves. I also want to recognise the tireless work of the many non-governmental organisations, including Compassion in World Farming, the Humane League, World Animal Protection, FOUR PAWS and others, represented in the Chamber today, that have been campaigning for decades to end the cruelty of cages, crates and inhumane farming systems. Thanks to their persistence, these issues are finally being heard in Parliament with the seriousness they deserve.

However, accountability is woefully lacking. Prosecutions for animal welfare violations in farming are extremely rare. Between 2011 and 2021, only 28 such prosecutions were brought—fewer than three per year, despite tens of thousands of inspections and numerous breaches. The regulatory system is led by the Animal and Plant Health Agency, which is under-resourced and overly reliant on industry self-reporting. We need independent inspections and meaningful penalties for breaches.

Many people believe that labels such as “Red Tractor” or “RSPCA Assured” guarantee good welfare, and consumers want to trust that such schemes deliver in good faither. It is the Government’s job to ensure that those labels mean something. Sadly, far too often that is not the case, as we have seen from many investigations on certified farms that still use crates, cages and other cruel practices.

One such practice that must be urgently reviewed is the use of farrowing crates on pig farms. A recent poll commissioned by Humane World for Animals found that 73% of people in the UK had either never heard of farrowing crates or knew very little about them—a stark reminder of how this suffering is hidden from the public eye. Yet in the UK, approximately 50% of sows are confined in these small metal cages, which prevent them from turning around or expressing natural maternal behaviours. Compassion in World Farming describes farrowing as among the most extreme forms of confinement. Pigs are widely regarded to be highly sentient animals, but they are forced to give birth and nurse their young while virtually immobilised. The European Union has committed to phasing out cages for all farmed animals by 2027, but a recent letter from the National Pig Association suggested another 20 years of suffering to phase them out.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have already indicated this to you, Mr Vickers, but I apologise to colleagues now for the fact that I will have to leave before the end of the debate, which is why I will not make a speech—a constituent is coming to see me, and the votes in the House have screwed up the timing.

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I entirely share his view; I guess that probably everyone who will speak in this debate does. One of the supposed advantages of our leaving the European Union was that we would be able to control what came into the country in the form of food. It would be quite wrong, would it not, if, while seeking to drive up animal welfare standards in this country, we disadvantaged our own farmers and at the same time allowed into the country products from other countries where those standards are lower? Therefore, does he agree with me—I am the patron of the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation—that we need to call upon the Minister to ensure that that does not happen, and that our farmers are not disadvantaged while we improve our standards?

[Adrian Ramsay]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I always enjoy hearing his thoughtful remarks and strongly agree with his words today, which show the cross-party concerns on this issue; I will come on to the issue of international trade later on.

On the issue of farrowing crates, I urge the Minister to set out a clear and swift timetable for the banning of farrowing crates; I hope he will address that issue specifically in his remarks at the end of the debate.

We must also speak to the plight of broiler chickens, which are the animals most intensively farmed in the UK today. Around 90% of chickens reared for meat in the UK—nearly 1 billion animals per year—are fast-growing breeds, often referred to as “Frankenchickens”. These birds have been selectively bred to grow up to 400% faster than chickens did in the 1950s, reaching slaughter weight in just 35 to 40 days. To put that in perspective, if a human baby grew at the same rate, they would weigh nearly 300 kg—the size of a fully grown tiger—by the time they were two months old.

Such rapid growth causes immense suffering, including chronic lameness, organ failure, respiratory problems and open burns, as these chickens spend their final days lying in their own waste, often with broken bones, too heavy to stand. That cannot be right and I hope the Minister directly addresses that point as well. There are alternatives—slower-growing breeds, with significantly improved protection outcomes—but without Government leadership, market incentives will continue to favour the cheapest and cruellest options.

On the subject of pigs and chickens, many campaigners will have rejoiced at the rejection of a new mega-farm at Methwold in Norfolk; I know the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) was heavily involved in campaigning against it. The sheer scale of the Methwold proposal was staggering—up to 870,000 chickens and 14,000 pigs, confined in barren indoor sheds. Chickens would have been packed into high-intensity units, with barely any space to move, no access to daylight and no environmental enrichment. Animal protection groups raised serious concerns about the dangerously low staff-to-animal ratio, which would have made it almost impossible to monitor suffering or to intervene in time.

Methwold is not an isolated case. There are many applications around the country, including a growing number in my constituency, for new or expanded intensive livestock units. That is deeply worrying for constituents, who are concerned not only about animal protection, but about air and water pollution, odour, and the long-term impact on communities and our countryside. The proposed Cranswick farm at Methwold was rightly opposed by the local council because of its cumulative environmental risks and wider ecological impact.

We should not be pursuing this model of farming, yet World Wide Fund and AGtivist.agency report that the number of US-style megafarms in the UK has increased by 21% in about a decade. That is going in the wrong direction, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how the Government will address it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for enabling us to speak on this important topic.

I will start by sharing how valuable it was to spend a day of last week’s recess at Staffordshire’s county show. As always, I came away full of admiration for our farming community. I am a little biased, but Staffordshire is a shining example of some of the best of British farming, and everybody at the show seemed to agree. That is not just in terms of productivity and innovation but in the deep care many of our farmers have for animal welfare.

That brings me to the complex and often uncomfortable balance we are trying to strike in this debate between raising animal welfare standards and the environmental, financial and logistical realities of making that happen. When we talk about moving away from practices such as caged systems—a move that, for the record, I absolutely support—we are also talking about the need for more barn space, more land use and more infrastructure, all of which mean higher running costs for farmers and sometimes greater greenhouse gas emissions.

To be clear, those are not reasons for rejecting higher animal welfare standards, but they are reasons to approach the issue with farmers in mind. That must be our starting point, because farmers are not charities and, more than ever, they have to look at the bottom line, which all too often is dwindling. Let us be frank: supermarkets will always demand higher welfare, but they are not always willing to pay more for it. That is disingenuous to consumers and squeezes producers even further, pitting welfare against farm viability.

An area where we could make a real difference is animal welfare labelling, which is being looked at by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, of which I am a member; I am glad that the Committee’s Chair is present. For the average shopper, labelling is a minefield. Information on nutrition and the country of origin has been simplified in the past decade, but in the animal welfare space we have statutory minimum standards and the “Red Tractor”, “RSPCA Assured”, EU organic and Soil Association organic labels, all representing different standards.

Consumers need to understand what labelling means in practical terms and how to interpret it when they shop. That will not be easy, but I believe that is a challenge that we can and should take on. However, in doing so, we must make sure producers have a say, alongside consumers and animal welfare organisations, so that they can realise the benefits of clearer labelling too. The lack of coherent and clear information on welfare on the shelf is a concern for farmers who are producing to higher standards because they do not have a clear way of differentiating their products for consumers. They therefore do not reap the rewards from the quality of their goods that should incentivise higher welfare standards. Research indicates that the current systems of farm assurance, regardless of the label, are not working as best as they could for farmers, consumers and, most importantly, animals.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely. Does he also agree that there is a significant error in not properly labelling animals subjected to non-stunned slaughter?

[Josh Newbury]

I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I think that that is a perfect example of where stronger, more consistent animal welfare labelling would give consumers that kind of information. In other countries, such as Germany, systems take that into account, and consumers should have access to that information.

On farm assurance, for example, the campaign group Animal Rising has uncovered failings in “RSPCA Assured” farms and abattoirs.

We also have to ensure that fairness for the farming sector is paramount. I raised that in Select Committee sessions and it has been raised today, but it bears repeating: we cannot ask our farmers to invest in higher standards and then leave them exposed to undercutting by imports. We are all in favour of better welfare. In fact, a 2022 poll revealed that 71% of the British public want the Government to pass more laws to improve animal welfare, but we cannot hold our farmers to a gold standard while turning a blind eye to imports that are produced to far lower standards. Trade deals without adequate safeguards will negatively impact the UK’s animal welfare standards for decades to come, undermining our farmers and the hard-won animal welfare improvements that we need to build on. That risks putting more farmers out of business, jeopardising our food security and offshoring animal cruelty.

To put it simply, if it is too cruel to produce here, it should be too cruel to import. If it is not good enough for our farms, it is not good enough for our shelves. Ultimately, we need to get the balance right by supporting our farmers to raise standards, making sure that consumers understand what they are buying and ensuring that the whole system—domestic or international—reflects our values as a nation of animal lovers.

Global Deforestation

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner)—in this case, he is a friend—on raising a matter of paramount importance that will affect the future of our children and grandchildren. I am fortunate enough to have five of the latter. I decided to participate in this debate having yesterday received a work of fiction, in the form of a briefing note from the Drax organisation. I also had the good fortune yesterday to meet two charming ladies, Dr Krystal Martin and Katherine Egland, both from the United State of Mississippi, where Drax has an operation that is hugely impacting their lives and their communities.

I am a simple man and I find long equations hard to follow, but it strikes me that if someone fells carbon-sequestering trees, using power to do so, and if they turn the wood into pellets, using power, transport those pellets across the United States, by either water or land, and then transport those pellets across the Atlantic in diesel-powered boats, the chances are that they are using quite a lot of carbon. It strikes me that Drax’s claim that its operation is somehow carbon-friendly has to be a myth.

One of my wiser colleagues reminded me that, for Drax, the clock starts ticking when the pellets arrive at the power station gates, and everything that goes before is written off. This is an absolute nonsense. It was subsidised by the British taxpayer to a considerable extent under the previous Government. To give credit where it is due, the current Government have secured a rather better deal than the previous one. Nevertheless, these practices are still being subsidised to a ridiculous extent.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

First, I would like to correct the record, because the right hon. Gentleman is anything but simple. He has always been a leading light in every debate he contributes to. In my constituency we reclaim wood that would have otherwise gone into landfill and turn it into pellets, but unfortunately the Government subsidy for that is about to end, making the situation the right hon. Gentleman describes ever more perverse.

[Sir Roger Gale]

The hon. Lady makes an unassailable point.

This should not be happening. Drax is felling trees in the southern states of the United States—in Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana—and throughout Canada on an unimaginable scale. The people at Drax claim that they are using pulp wood from

“thinnings that help to open up the forest canopy and get light onto the forest floor”.

Oh no they are not! They are engaged in scorched-earth forestry. They are felling acres and acres of woodland in the southern United States and Canada, and that is not acceptable. And it is being subsidised by the British Government. Worse still, the health of the local populations in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi is being directly and adversely affected by Drax’s practices.

Drax has lied—there is no other word for it—to secure its contracts and licences. I shall do my damnedest to ensure that the renewal of those licences is contested in every way. I urge the Minister to go back to her Government, particularly the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, to expose the myth that is Drax, and to insist that we must find viable alternatives—not tomorrow, but now.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

If hon. Members restrict their speeches to four minutes, we will fit everyone in.

Farming

Roger Gale Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

What the right hon. Gentleman refers to is the consequence of an agricultural policy that, despite aiming to do many worthy and worthwhile things, no longer has the concept of food production at its heart. Across this House and the different parties, we need to rebuild a consensus around getting food production back into agriculture. Climate change mitigation, nature restoration and the rest of it are all important parts of the context, but without food production at the heart of it, we will have the unintended consequences that he outlines.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

I would like to take the right hon. Gentleman back to the point that he was making before he was interrupted. Earlier today, at Business and Trade questions, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) asked what the Government are doing to assist the rural economy, but answer came there none. Is it not the case that the rural economy is interlinked and that if we damage one part of that economy—farming—we damage all of it? On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the supply of goods and equipment to farmers, there will be so many other industries affected if this persecution is allowed to continue.

[Mr Carmichael]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It has to be properly understood that farming underpins everything in rural communities. To take the example of agricultural merchants and machinery dealers, these are successful businesspeople. They will be people who are part of the local Rotary club. They will have children in schools. They will be people who take on all sorts of leadership responsibilities within the community. If they cannot make their living in the countryside, we should not expect them just to sit around and wait for something to come along. Of course they will leave and the population will decrease, and we will be in a vicious downward cycle, which is the very opposite of what we need. It is also the very opposite of what a good, well-resourced and valued farming industry can provide for the country as a whole. If we are serious about the mission for growth, as the Government tell us, it has to be growth for everyone. It has to be growth across every sector and every part of the country, including rural areas and farming.

That allows me to come back to the point that I was about to make about the NFU’s confidence survey, which was published just this week. I am afraid it makes grim reading for anybody who cares about the countryside and agriculture. It tells us that 85% of landowners believe that the reforms to APR and BPR will increase their inheritance tax liability. Of those, 32% say they plan to reduce investment to mitigate the increase. The figure increases to 42% for mixed arable and livestock businesses, and to 49% for arable farms. Some 75% of employers expect to be impacted by the increase in employer national insurance contributions, 65% say they expect a reduction in profits because of the increase, and 43% expect to reduce investment to offset the additional costs. Again, that is on top of this week’s changes to the SFI and the basic payment scheme.

I would like to say quite a lot more about other aspects of the Budget, particularly the removal of the ringfence for devolved budgets, but I am reluctant to do so, given the pressure on our time this afternoon and the number of people who want to contribute to the debate. However, I have spoken about those issues before, so those who are interested in my views can refer to my previous contributions.

A small silver lining is to be found in the debate on APR and BPR, because it has forced us to think about the extent to which farming produces such a spectacularly poor return on capital. This is something we have all known for years, but now we have been forced to ask ourselves why it is the case. The hard fact of the matter is that 80 years of Government interference in the food market through agricultural subsidies has had the unintended consequence of keeping farmers poor and making supermarkets rich. I have a ten-minute rule motion next week to encourage the Government to introduce meaningful regulation in the food supply chain, and the Minister and his colleagues have recently spoken about their intention to see farm incomes increase. That is to be welcomed, but it will need a much more comprehensive and coherent strategy than we have seen thus far.

Not all confidence is about finances. We have seen a lot of doubt thrown into every sector of agricultural production in recent months because of the biosecurity threats that face this country. The poultry sector has been hit hard as a consequence of avian influenza. We have seen foot and mouth outbreaks on the continent. We see African swine fever moving across the continent, and it seems likely that we will see bluetongue disease back in this country soon. The vets on the frontline—those in the Animal and Plant Health Agency—do a remarkable job, and we owe them all a debt of gratitude, but so much more needs to be done.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has heard evidence on this issue from port health authorities, local authorities and the APHA itself. We have asked the Department about the point at which Government software systems were updated to stop animal products coming from Germany, following the identification of a foot and mouth outbreak there. Despite getting answers to our letters, we have still not been told by the Department whether IPAFFS—the import of products, animals, food and feed system—was updated on 10 or 16 January. That is something that the Government should be able to tell us.

I have sympathy for the Government, because they are dealing with a brand new system. Essentially, we should be able to see this as a pressure test on it. If the system did not work perfectly everywhere, let us identify those parts where the pressure escaped. But in order to do that, we need more transparency and more candour from Government Departments. If the Minister can answer that question when he responds to the debate, I will be enormously grateful. If he cannot, it would assist the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee greatly if we were able to get that answer in correspondence.

Time really is against us this afternoon. I would have loved to have the rest of the afternoon, but we do not. I will conclude my remarks, but let me say on behalf of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that I very much hope that Members from across the House will continue to engage with our inquiry, because if food security is national security, as the Prime Minister keeps telling us, then our Committee is one of the most important Committees in this House.