River Habitats: Protection and Restoration

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Tom Hayes]

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

[Sir Ashley Fox]

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

[Tom Hayes]

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

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

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

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

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

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

He says that farmers

“are part of the solution”—

he is right—and that

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tom Hayes]

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

[Sir Ashley Fox]

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

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

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

Animal Rescue Centres

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 718660 relating to the licensing and regulation of animal rescue centres.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank the petitioner Paul Watkinson and his colleague Niki Roe for their hard work in gathering almost 110,000 signatures for this petition, which is a fantastic achievement. The petition, which is entitled “Introduce Licensing and Regulation for Dog and Cat Rescues to Protect Welfare”, states:

“Many UK animal rescues operate without clear legal oversight, creating opportunities for unethical practices. Some rescues have been linked to supporting irresponsible breeding, neglecting animals, or misusing public donations.

Without enforceable standards, there is a risk that animals suffer in poor conditions, and public trust is undermined. We call on the Government to introduce mandatory licensing and regular inspections to ensure rescues operate transparently and uphold high welfare standards. Regulation is essential to prevent cruelty, improve accountability, and ensure all rescued animals receive proper care.

By introducing clear legal requirements, the Government can safeguard animal welfare, protect public confidence in rescues, and prevent organizations from operating irresponsibly.”

However, it is important to acknowledge that most animal rescues do great work.

Many activities associated with animals must already be licensed under the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018, including selling pets, providing boarding for cats and dogs, hiring out horses, dog breeding and keeping or training animals for exhibition. It is clearly not unusual for animal activities to be licensed, so the petitioner and many others believe that rescue and rehoming centres should be the next step.

In England, there is currently no statutory code for rescue centres; there are only voluntary frameworks. They include the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals code of practice for animal welfare establishments and the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes standards, to which the Government’s response refers. However, Scotland has already introduced a licensing system for dog and cat rescues under the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (Scotland) Regulations 2021. Similarly, Wales has had a code of practice for animal welfare establishments since 2020. Its consultation on licensing animal welfare establishments found that 82% of respondents were in favour of licensing; the Welsh Government announced in June 2025 that they would prioritise taking forth the proposals of the consultation. England now has a great opportunity to join the rest of Great Britain and catch up with licensing these organisations.

There are many establishments that are not meeting standards but have good intentions. Well-meaning individuals can find themselves out of their depth and have no structure or training to know what is best. Once organisations are known to be local rescues, they can be inundated with animals left on their doorstep. A lack of knowledge and training is putting animals at risk, along with staff exhausted by malpractice and people who choose to adopt from the rescue. It is important for the law to draw a distinction between being a cat lady and being an unofficial rescue that is overcrowded with animals. Unfortunately, there are also cases of people running rescue homes with financial and malicious motivations. The worst scenarios include very dangerous practices, including rogue traders masquerading to the public as something they are not.

Nobody wants to close small organisations, so it is important that smaller dog and cat rescues be supported through a transition and that cats and dogs be moved to other rescues where it is completely necessary. Rescuers should have the opportunity to move through legislation and structure and be supported with grants, for example from the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes. Work is already going on between small organisations and the bigger charities: larger groups can advise and support the smaller organisations. That would continue as we transitioned to a licensing model.

Under the current laws, anyone can set up a rescue. I think we would all agree that is not acceptable. The fact that there are no standards or training can lead to the illegal import of animals, the outbreak of disease and poor hygiene standards. Without regulation, those dangerous practices will only continue. Nor have we any data on how widespread they may be, as without legislation there is no formal tracking of dog and cat rescue homes across the country.

We know that the current system is not working, as we know of many sorry cases in which it has failed. When I met staff from the Blue Cross, they told me about the many animals that they had found being kept in inappropriate circumstances for long periods. For example, one dog had lived in a blank kennel for eight years with no kind of enrichment. The rescue thought that the dog was simply sedate, but really he had just given up on life. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 is not sufficient: it keeps an animal alive, with a safe environment, diet and housing, but it does not address the specific issues that arise in rescue shelters, such as the spread of disease.

Dog and cat rescues should ensure that pets are safe and suitable to go back into the public domain, and that they have a good quality of life over long periods. The Animal Welfare Act states that local authorities

“may prosecute proceedings for any offence under this Act”,

But that relies on individuals whistleblowing on offending organisations. That can allow suffering to carry on far too long.

There are already many examples on which legislation could be based—Scotland’s legislation, the Welsh code of practice, the RSPCA standards and the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes standards. The foundations are already there. The sector is aligned on the need for action, as I am sure the upcoming consultation will show.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I thank the 145 signatories to the petition from Bournemouth East; I also thank Staffie and Stray Rescue, Waggy Tails Rescue Dorset and Margaret Green Animal Rescue, alongside Cats Protection and the RSPCA, for all that they do in my constituency. My hon. Friend mentions the Government’s recently announced plan to consult on the issue. Does she agree that we need a publicly accessible national database of animal welfare establishments? That is the only way in which the rescue and rehoming centres that ensure that abandoned or lost animals have a safe place and a second chance can truly be supported.

[Irene Campbell]

I agree that that would be a good step forward. It is also important to strike an appropriate balance when setting regulations. If regulations are too exacting, people may begin to shop rather than adopt, possibly importing from abroad. Another common issue is that dog and cat homes often end up taking in other species—so-called exotic pets or wild animals, for example—that they may not be qualified to take in. In future, it may be worth looking at regulating all forms of animal rescue centre to prevent the abuse of all species. The enforcement of any future animal welfare legislation is key, because otherwise new licensing will not be effective. It is important that the local authorities that will inspect the organisations be upskilled and capable of dealing with new, rigorous systems.

Although the petition closed in October 2025, the Government responded in July 2025, advising that all animal rescue organisations have to meet existing protections under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and that individuals contact the local authority if an organisation is not meeting them. Their response also advised that members of the public can check whether a rescue centre is a member of the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes, which has standards for rehoming, neutering and training, among many other matters.

It is important to consider that the Government’s new animal welfare strategy, which was launched in December 2025, addresses the topic of dog and cat rescues. I am happy to see the actions outlined in the strategy, including the commitment to launch a consultation on licensing rescue and rehoming organisations and developing the evidence base on welfare issues.

Rescue animals are some of the most vulnerable animals. It is important that as lawmakers we do our best to fully protect them. Being a registered rescue should not be voluntary, and the Government are right to take steps to address the issue. It is important that when we set goals such as these, we have a clear road map. I look forward to the Minister’s response and am keen to hear the timelines associated with the consultation.

Rural Communities

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

As I say, we urge the Government to pause and work with the shooting community. We all understand the intent behind the proposals, but the Government have to get them right, because they could have grave ramifications.

Trail hunting, which we will hear about this afternoon, is long-established, and was specifically permitted by the previous Labour Government under the Hunting Act 2004 as a humane alternative to fox hunting. It is rightly a criminal offence to break the terms of the Hunting Act, and any such criminal offences should be enforced rigorously. Indeed, there have been 416 convictions in the past 15 years. Labour MPs need to be able to say why they propose imposing a blanket ban instead of tackling those who actually break the law. If there is to be intellectual consistency, do they advocate banning driving, on the basis that some people speed? Of course not. There should be effective enforcement of the criminal law brought in by their predecessor Labour Government. I wish, for example, that the Government would prioritise stopping the egregious crime of hare coursing, which we suffer from very badly in Lincolnshire, or organised rural crime or fly-tipping—all terrible crimes that seem to be increasing. Under this Government, sadly, police numbers are falling, including in rural areas. Rather than tackle the issues of policing and enforcement, the Government want to impose a blanket ban. Let us be clear-eyed as to why they are doing this: their Prime Minister is weak, his Cabinet is circling and his Back Benchers are revolting. [Laughter.] The Government need to throw them some red meat, so they are coming after lawful rural sports.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for giving way from her humorous speech. She has just listed a series of changes that she would like this Labour Government to make. Can she tell the House whether, in a 15th year of Conservative Government, those changes would have been made?

[Victoria Atkins]

Very much so. If the hon. Gentleman comes to the county of Lincolnshire, he will see the superb operation that Lincolnshire police did throughout that time to tackle hare coursing, with the support of Home Office Ministers. We have to be clear-eyed about the impact of organised rural crime, because theft of high-value farm machinery is having a terrible impact across farms. In short, this Government cannot let people live and let live.

The final example I will give is the Government’s arrogance and contempt over the infamous family farm and family business tax fiasco—what a complete and utter mess by the Secretary of State, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister. I have some advice for the next Labour Prime Minister, later this year: this is a textbook example of how not to govern. The Government betrayed at the first opportunity an election promise not to touch agricultural property relief and business property relief, and spent 14 months marching junior Ministers and Back Benchers up the hill to defend their policy, telling the rural community that they were wrong and that Ministers knew better; they recommitted to this tax at the Budget on 26 November and at oral questions to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 18 December, and then they had a mystical revelation. Five days later, they U-turned on their hated tax. It was a Christmas miracle—and it is an absolute miracle that any Minister can look at themselves in the mirror after this chaotic and shameful episode.

The Government’s mess of a partial U-turn will raise only enough money to pay for an afternoon in the NHS, yet, as the Country Land and Business Association points out, it will condemn the families operating on the slimmest of margins—who have invested in expensive machinery or who live in expensive parts of the country—to selling the family farm to pay this vindictive tax. That is why the tax must be axed.

We Conservatives have forced four votes on this issue in the past 14 months. Labour MPs toed the party line until the Budget vote in December, and that made the difference. They have the chance tonight to axe the family farm and family business tax completely, and their constituents will be watching.

This year we Conservatives will continue to fight for rural communities, for the shops, pubs and small businesses that are the backbone of the rural economy, for better funding for our vital public services, for rural people and sports to have the freedom to live and let live and, of course, for our farmers to thrive, not just survive. We Conservatives care about our market towns, our villages, our neighbours and our families. I say to them: we get it, and we have your backs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

We are in only the 18th month of the five years of the Parliament, so the hon. Gentleman should be patient.

[Tom Hayes]

Bournemouth is a town of animal lovers, and it has received with great happiness the news that the Government are bringing forward animal welfare reforms. Could the Minister outline some of those reforms and how they will particularly benefit our rural communities?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Certainly, the animal welfare strategy is very comprehensive. As hon. Members will know, it encompasses farm animals, wild animals and pets, as well as international trade and all those aspects. It also looks at what can be done to enforce the ban on hare coursing, which is particularly brutal. I was happy that the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) supported that element. [Interruption.] But it happens all the time—that is the point. I said, “enforce the ban”; I did not say “banning”. We can have the best laws in the world, but if none of them is enforced we might as well not bother.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is vital that the judiciary and the legal profession continue to reflect the society they serve. We are working to bring in new and diverse magistrates over the next 12 months and will continue to recruit. It is vital that our judicial benches reflect the communities we serve. Judges swear a judicial oath to act without fear or favour, which is a cornerstone of our justice system.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

6. Which crimes have the highest prosecution rates in Bournemouth East constituency.

[The Solicitor General]

The most granular data that I can provide is for the Dorset police area, where the crime with the highest prosecution volume is shoplifting, followed by driving under the influence and then assault by beating. To keep communities safe over the Christmas period, the Government have launched the winter of action. Police will use hotspot patrols, and will work closely with businesses and communities to clamp down on shop theft and street crime across hundreds of town centres, including Bournemouth.

[Tom Hayes]

Mr Speaker, may I wish you and your team a happy Christmas? What the Solicitor General found on looked into this does not surprise me. Chris has said that he cannot stomach shoplifting, particularly at the Asda petrol station in Charminster, and Jackie is putting up with antisocial behaviour and shoplifting at the Co-op on Christchurch Road. Does the Solicitor General agree that businesses need easier ways to report crime, and that no shop worker or constituent should have to put up with fear of harm or abuse on their high street?

[The Solicitor General]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I know that he has convened a meeting in his constituency on retail crime with high street businesses, and he has been vocal, both in the Chamber and with me, about the scourge of shoplifting. The Government are introducing new measures in the Crime and Policing Bill to tackle retail crime. That includes removing the £200 low-value limit for shoplifting, as well as introducing a new offence of assaulting a shop worker.

Royal Assent

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

No, I do not agree with the shadow Minister. I have chosen my words carefully: this is a complicated set of issues, we are consulting and we will be coming back with our proposals shortly.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

5. What steps he is taking to help tackle water pollution on the Dorset coast.

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

My hon. Friend showed me the scale of pollution on the Dorset coast and I share his determination to put a stop to it. This Government are fixing the broken sewage pipes that are responsible for this pollution, funded by £104 billion of private investment that we have helped to secure. Over the next five years, that will fund Wessex Water, in his area, to cut storm overflow spills by 43%—a major milestone towards cleaning up for good beautiful places in his constituency, which I had the pleasure of visiting with him, such as Bournemouth beach and Hengistbury.

[Tom Hayes]

I thank the Secretary of State for his answer and for his two visits to Bournemouth. People still talk happily about his visit to the Hengistbury Head Outdoors centre. I met recently with constituents in Bournemouth East who are calling for nationalisation as a way to improve accountability and investment in the water industry. How does the Secretary of State see a path towards nationalisation sitting within his wider efforts to protect our waters?

[Steve Reed]

Nationalisation is not the answer, because it would require handing over more than £100 billion to water company owners that could only be raised through higher taxation or cuts to vital public services. It would also take years of legal wrangling that would see the brakes slammed on investment, causing pollution to get worse and, ultimately, lead to higher bills for customers. This Government are taking the fastest possible route towards cleaner water and fairer bills.

Farmed Animals: Cages and Crates

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to contribute with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) introduced this important debate so well. As a nation of animal lovers, we rightly seek the highest welfare standards. We were the first country to create animal protection law, in 1822, and the first country to set up an animal welfare charity, in 1824. I was proud to be elected as the Member of Parliament for Bournemouth East on a manifesto that pledged the most ambitious advancement of animal welfare in a generation.

Today, I reaffirm my commitment to my constituents in Bournemouth East, because the compassion that we show for animals represents who we are as a people. Animal welfare is extremely important. We know that cages and crates cause huge suffering for farm animals. We need action now to end the use of cages and crates for farmed animals because our constituents demand it. I know this issue is of significant interest and importance to my constituents because 190 of them signed the petition and my mailbox has been inundated by constituents getting in touch about this issue. Whether from Hilary on Carbery Avenue, Alison on Windham Road, or Angela on Chigwell Road, there is a call for action. The public in Bournemouth East want us to go further and faster.

It is good news that Ministers are working closely with the farm sector to deliver high standards for food production, animal welfare and environmental concerns. It is good news that when it comes to laying hens we are moving away from the use of enriched colony cages to free-range and barn production, and that Government grants to farmers are supporting that work. We need an urgent and full move away from cages. As we have just heard, 8 million laying hens are unable to flap their wings because they are confined in such small, intolerable spaces.

It is also good news that major supermarkets have pledged to stop selling shell eggs from hens kept in colony cages by the end of this year. That shift will happily quicken the move away from colony cages, with free-range eggs now accounting for over two thirds of the market, but we must go further and faster. Indeed, we may have to: the UK agreed in May to link to EU farm standards, so if the EU brings in a cage ban, the UK would have to reciprocate. We should be mindful of that, as we are already seeing moves in that direction in France and Germany, and the European Commission is interested in that policy area.

Like colleagues who have spoken before me, I am proud to be a Labour Member of Parliament because the last Labour Government provided the most comprehensive reform of animal welfare laws and policies in over a century. I am proud, too, of the Labour manifesto commitments that we made on animal welfare, including proposals to ban trail hunting, end puppy smuggling and puppy farming, ban the use of snare traps, ban the import of animals with fashion mutilations and cropped ears and ban scientific testing on dogs; we had a debate on that subject a few short weeks ago in which the will of MPs of all parties was extraordinarily clear. We also committed to a ban on the import of hunting trophies, which is particularly timely because 2 July will mark a decade since the killing of Cecil the lion. I hope that the House will focus on the issue with renewed sharpness.

I am pleased to see the Government pledge to ratify the high seas treaty, a landmark agreement that will protect marine life in international waters, covering almost two thirds of the ocean, including sharks, whales and sea turtles, which are currently vulnerable to unsustainable and illegal fishing and other extractive industries. This Government are already supporting animals and marine life, are committed to supporting animals over the course of this Parliament, and are building on the work of the last Labour Government in protecting animals. I want to stand alongside our Labour Government with their commitment to introduce their ambitious programme for animal welfare, because all our constituents are calling on us to do better and to do it faster.

Sewage

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

First, I should declare an interest: I have close relatives working in the water sector, although in science rather than in the water industry. I rise to speak in favour of the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and other Ministers. Our rivers have suffered from serious sewage pollution over many years and I am pleased the Government are now taking action to address this terrible problem. I want to discuss the nature of the action and to raise some important constituency matters.

As we have heard this afternoon, for far too long water companies have ignored residents’ concerns and continued to pump sewage into our rivers, lakes and seas. Reading is particularly badly affected because it is downstream of many of the pumping outlet stations further up the Thames, as colleagues from the Thames valley area have hinted at.

I strongly support the measures taken in the Government’s Water (Special Measures) Act, which tackles the issue. The legislation received Royal Assent on 24 February, and introduces tough new penalties, including imprisonment for water company executives when companies fail to co-operate or when they obstruct investigations. Notably, it also bans bonuses for CEOs and senior leaders within such companies unless high environmental standards are met, consumers are protected and the company is financially resilient. The Act ensures that each emergency sewage overflow outlet is independently monitored, which is an important step forward. That will make it quicker and easier for regulators to investigate and punish wrongdoing. The measures will increase transparency by requiring water companies to publish real-time data for all emergency overflows in England—again, a clear and important step forward.

We heard earlier—my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) from the Select Committee mentioned further details—that the Government have commissioned the Cunliffe review, which is another important step forward in tackling these problems. It will look in much greater detail at how companies are held to account for non-compliance and at a number of other matters.

I am conscious of time, but I would like to raise some local examples of sewage pollution and other matters related to waterways in the Reading area. I have seen—as I spoke about during the debate on the water Bill—some appalling incidents of sewage pollution in my area, including seeing a tributary of the Thames turn a lurid green after a sewage incident in Hampshire, which fed into Foudry brook, which is a tributary of the Kennet, which ultimately flows into the Thames.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

On Friday, I will be testing the water quality in Christchurch harbour because we need a conservation policy there, as suggested by the Christchurch Harbour and Marine Society. I am also concerned about the River Stour in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Environment Agency could set higher standards for water quality and, in so doing, help to establish the data that shows where areas are falling short? I am particularly concerned about the River Stour, but I know he too will have rivers that he is concerned about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Rodda]

My hon. Friend is right on cue and entices me to the next area I want to talk about, which is the general problems with Thames Water. Those of us who represent constituencies in the Thames Water area know that it is an appalling company. I do not want to criticise individual members of staff—the head office is in my constituency and many local people work hard there—but, in my experience, the company is poorly managed.

I was going to mention a number of other incidents, including two where water was cut off to large parts of Reading’s suburbs and where residents are still waiting for compensation. I have had to write to Ofwat to ask it to investigate. I have had other incidents, including the creation of a sinkhole due to a water leak, which has caused severe distress to residents; I appreciate that that is not sewage, but it is part of the wider water provision network, so I hope that it is in the scope. In this case, residents are having to wait for concrete to be pumped into the chalk in order for the road next to their homes to be stabilised. I have seen a series of wider problems with flooding and other concerns about watercourses not being maintained.

[Tom Hayes]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Matt Rodda]

Of course.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

Of course, it is an independent commission; it is up to Sir Jon to appoint to the board whom he likes. However, it is a very balanced board, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise that voices from many stakeholder groups are represented, as indeed they should be.

The commission will report to the UK and Welsh Governments this summer, after which both Governments will respond and consult on Sir Jon’s recommendations, including on further legislation.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is right that things are getting better. In my constituency, two new investments in water sector upgrades, by Wessex Water and Pennon, are worth a total of £230 million. Clearly, much more has to be done, but will he join me in welcoming those new investments? Does he recognise that such investment is not consistent across the country, which is exactly why we need the Bill?

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I welcome those investments. From visiting him in his constituency, I know what a champion he is for cleaning up the water and the beaches in Bournemouth.

I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice and the noble Lady, Baroness Hayman of Ullock for their expert leadership of the Bill through Parliament, and members of staff in the Bill team and in DEFRA for their hard work and professionalism. I thank Members on all sides who participated in the debates at all stages. I extend my thanks to our colleagues in the Welsh Government and the Senedd for working collaboratively with the UK Government on the Bill. I am delighted that, at the Welsh Government’s own request, the benefits brought about by the Bill will extend to Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

I thank everyone who has scrutinised and worked on the Bill in both Houses, including the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), our very efficient Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), and the noble Lord Roborough, who led very constructive discussions in the other place. It is a shame that the Government rejected the amendments put forward today. I thank the Doorkeepers, the hon. Members who chaired the Committee and everyone who helped His Majesty’s official Opposition to scrutinise the Bill.

Across the House, we can all agree that there are fundamental problems facing the water and sewerage industry. Since 2010, the number of designated bathing waters has increased; we have seen a significant improvement in water quality ratings, with more water rated as excellent or good; and an increase in blue flag beaches. But of course we want to see more. We were, in fact, the first Government in history to set out that storm overflows must be reduced, and our landmark Environment Act 2021 gave stronger powers to regulators and imposed strict demands for tackling pollution. We set legally binding targets to improve water quality and availability, and to reduce nutrient pollution. We rolled out catchment-sensitive farming to all farms in England. We stepped up the requirements for investment, including investment from water companies and storm overflow improvements, and nationally significant infrastructure projects such as the Thames tideway tunnel super sewer. When we came into government, just 7% of storm overflows were monitored. When we left government, we had increased that to 100%.

We support the Bill, but we do so with some disappointment at its lack of ambition. Frankly, as we have said before, much of what the Bill tries to do, including monitoring, blocking bonuses and fines, was brought in by the Conservatives in government. We say that the primary legislation is not necessary, but we will of course support the Bill.

I am especially disappointed that the Government have declined to accept our amendments. In particular, it is woeful that they have failed to put the water restoration fund into legislation. [Interruption.] I will deal with the Minister’s comments in a moment. The public rightly want to see the Government addressing water quality, but rather water company fines being used to restore water bodies, that money will be going into the gaping hole of the Treasury’s coffers, presumably in an attempt to undo some of the damage caused by the Chancellor’s disastrous growth-blocking, tax-hiking, job-cutting, investment-plummeting Budget.

Now I am going to correct the Minister, and I will do so from the Dispatch Box rather than through a point of order. Last summer it emerged that Thames Water, Yorkshire Water and Northumbrian Water would be fined a record £160 million between them for a “catalogue of failure” over illegal sewage discharges, subject to consultation. However, in August—when this Government were in power—the Treasury held back those fines, which were due to go into the water restoration fund to help clean up affected areas. The Minister gave figures earlier, but it is her Government’s fault that money was not paid into that fund. We on the side of the House believe that the polluters should pay for their mistakes, rather than their fines paying for pay rises for the Government’s trade union buddies. [Interruption.] Yes, I am sure that the train drivers are very grateful.

[Tom Hayes]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Victoria Atkins]

I will give way, with great interest.

[Tom Hayes]

I sat on the Public Bill Committee, and I must say that the tone that the right hon. Lady is striking is very different from that of her colleagues on the Committee. I just wonder whether she as any regrets about her Government’s record on tackling sewage or pollution. Would she acknowledge any regrets?

[Victoria Atkins]

I do love being mansplained to by Labour Back Benchers. I suppose it is part of the Labour party’s women problem. The hon. Gentleman is now throwing his thumbs up at me—goodness me!

What I will say is that throughout the passage of the Bill, we have said, “We have made some progress, but there is more to do.” That is precisely why we are supporting the Bill tonight, although we will try to improve it and strengthen it.

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

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Tim Farron]

I appreciate that, Mr Vickers. I am very grateful for the helpful and constructive intervention the hon. Gentleman just made. Look, this is not an amendment we are seeking to press to a vote, but it is an issue that is clearly very serious in terms of the quality and safety of regulation. We are perfectly happy for the Government to use all the legal might they have available to find a way of amending the Bill on Report to deal with the issue in a way that builds confidence and prevents obvious conflicts of interest.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. This is an important topic and Committee, but before I talk about that, I wish gently to remind the hon. Member for Epping Forest that the Conservative party was in power for 14 years. I know the general election defeat was historic—quite enormous—but I do not think the bump to the head should have caused such an enormous loss of memory about what was achieved, or not achieved, over the past 14 years. Residents of Bournemouth East are incandescent about the state of water infrastructure and the sewage that they are enduring as a seaside town. It is no surprise that as a consequence, when I was campaigning in the general election and knocking on doors since, people raised this hot topic with me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)]

As a fellow Member from a coastal town, I echo my hon. Friend’s point about the anger and frustration on the doors from residents in Weston-super-Mare. Over the past decade the quality of water on the three main beaches has got worse and worse, and the bathing water at all three is now classified as poor. The anxiety among every sector of the community is really high, and political point scoring aside, the situation is dire. This week raw sewage was spilled on Uphill beach because of the crumbling infrastructure. I urge the Government—I am pleased we have grasped the nettle—to take on the big challenges.

[Tom Hayes]

I thank my hon. Friend for his important intervention. It is great to see him championing his constituency, and it goes to show why Labour won in so many seaside and coastal towns. The people of those towns and cities trusted Labour to bring forward a Bill such as this as quickly as we have done, and this is just the start of change. As we have heard, more legislation will come forward, but so that we do not delay and wait for the full package, the Minister is bringing forward this action rapidly to respond to the urgent case that is being made on doorsteps all around our country, particularly in our seaside towns.

I have constituents who are livid about the fact that while infrastructure has crumbled, no investment has gone in, and money has gone out the door in bonuses and shareholder payment dividends, bills are rising. That is not just water bills—bills on a whole host of things contribute to the significant cost of living crisis that so many in our country have felt. I welcome the efforts of this Government, and I congratulate the Minister on all the hard work that she and her officials have been undertaking. I very much look forward to seeing further development of our programme of investment.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers, and if I may I will start by wishing everyone a happy new year. I thank members of the Committee for the engagement with the Bill they have shown, and I also thank all the environmental groups, everyone who submitted evidence, and Members in the other place for the work they did on the Bill.

I am pleased to be back debating this vital piece of legislation. As I set out on Second Reading, the Bill will drive meaningful improvements in the performance and culture of the water industry as part of wider efforts to ensure that water companies deliver for both customers and the environment and, as has been mentioned in the debate so far, act on the real anger and mistrust we feel towards our water sector at the moment.

However, the Bill is one part of the Government’s ambitious and long-term approach to fundamentally transforming the water sector. As Members will be aware, in October 2024 the Government announced an independent commission, which will be the largest review of the water sector since privatisation. The commission has a broad scope and will consult experts in areas such as the environment, public health, engineering and economics, as well as customers and investors. It will look closely at financial resilience as one of its key areas—I know we all care about that.

I reassure members of the Committee on the timeline; the commission will report to the Government by quarter 2 of 2025. The UK Government and the Welsh Government will then respond and consult on proposals that they intend to take forward, and we expect those to form the basis of future legislation.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Tom Hayes Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

The water is key to Bournemouth’s appeal as the most stunningly beautiful town in our country. [Interruption.] Contentious. Unsurprisingly, Bournemouth East residents are absolutely horrified by the untreated sewage that is forced on our town. Jacqueline from Boscombe has had to make her “Wild and Free” surf therapy sessions surf-free because of sewage in the sea, meaning children and young people whose mental health could be significantly improved are let down again. Sarah from Charminster, who is a regular sea swimmer to manage her long covid symptoms, is now worried about the impact of this pollution on her health and on the natural environment. Gareth in Muscliff is clear that:

“Something really must be done about this and soon for the sake of our health and future.”

Sarah in Southbourne told me that:

“This is not the only environmental crisis that we face, but focusing on it, and ensuring improvements, would be regarded as major successes.”

While the Conservatives may have let the water companies off the hook, the public did not let the Conservatives off the hook, and at the last election we saw change. We are seeing more of that change today with this Bill, which my constituents will warmly welcome. Last week I met the people who run Holdenhurst water recycling centre to see the significant upgrades that have received nearly £30 million of investment, which I support. I have also recently met the chief executive officer of Wessex Water to discuss the pollution that we are experiencing locally, and I am pleased to see significant investments that will improve Bournemouth’s ability to manage the automatic operation of storm overflows. However, we can do more. We can change how we see storm overflows so that we no longer see them as a sewage problem; we instead can see them as a rain management problem. If we reimagine rainwater as a resource to be captured where it lands, reused wherever possible and removed from foul water sewage heading to the water recycling centre, we can do a better job.

I welcome the Bill because it will give the Environment Agency and Ofwat, which are central to protecting our waterways, the powers and the support that they need. The EA will now have new powers to bring forward criminal charges against law-breaking water executives, and water companies will now bear the costs of enforcement action taken in response to their failings. The introduction of fixed and automatic penalties will make it quicker and easier for the EA to fine water companies that commit offences. Furthermore, for the first time there will be a requirement to publish real-time data on all emergency overflows, so that the public and regulators can see what is actually going on.

I close by paying tribute to the work of Surfers Against Sewage, and to Christchurch Harbour and Marine Society and Vanessa Ricketts, who have done so much locally to hold the hope while we waited for a new Government to bring forward this Bill. I am proud that this Labour Government are committed to cleaning up the mess that the Conservatives let our waterways become. The Bill is the first step towards doing that.