Agricultural Sector: Import Standards

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

I thank the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) for leading this important debate.

The UK prides itself on having some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, and I welcomed last month’s animal welfare strategy, which promises to go further still. I particularly welcome the planned ban on farrowing crates for sows and cages for hens—crucial steps forward in our animal protection in this country—and have called on the Government to set out clear timescales for their delivery and support for farmers during the transition.

The animal welfare strategy reflects years of campaigning by animal protection organisations and growing public demand for change, and marks a significant step forward, with real commitments on animal welfare standards—but there are some glaring gaps. What is illegal to produce here because it is too cruel remains legal to import and sell. That is incoherent, undermines public confidence and leaves higher-welfare British farmers facing unfair competition. The principle should be straightforward: if a practice is too cruel for food produced in Britain, it should be too cruel for food imported into Britain.

Yet reality tells a different story. Some 97% of our pork imports come from countries where sow stalls are still legal, despite the practice having been illegal here for 25 years. Battery cages may be banned here but they remain widespread elsewhere, and imports of eggs have increased more than twelvefold in the last year alone. Since the Australia trade deal was signed, lamb imports have risen by over 160%, despite cruel practices such as mulesing—illegal here—remaining common there.

This is not a niche concern. According to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Compassion in World Farming, 95% of countries with UK market access have lower animal welfare standards than the UK. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs data shows that non-EU imports of eggs have more than tripled since 2020, poultry imports have risen by 60%, and pork by over 80%. In trade discussions with the United States Administration, Ministers focused on food safety and sanitary standards, but that focus risks leaving a huge loophole for imports produced in ways that would be illegal here, widening the welfare gap instead of closing it. While the UK will rightly maintain its ban on hormone-treated beef and chlorine-washed chicken coming from the US, it is

“looking to compromise in other areas”.

Higher-welfare British farmers are paying the price. The NFU has been clear: farmers want trade deals, but not at the expense of being undercut by food produced to standards that would be illegal on their own farms. Over 90% of British livestock farmers support restricting low-welfare imports, and the public agree: more than four in five people support banning imports produced using methods outlawed here. We need a statutory requirement that animal products sold in the UK, whether produced here or imported, meet British welfare standards. We also need mandatory welfare labelling that applies equally to imports. The animal welfare strategy’s consultation commitments on that do not go far enough.

In conclusion, I would be grateful if the Minister could set out how the Government intend to close this loophole and ensure that our individual trade deals and overall policy fully reflect the ambition that is rightly included in the animal welfare strategy. The standards of our higher-welfare British farmers at home should not be undermined by lower welfare standards abroad. We should not be importing cruelty, and our farmers deserve a level playing field.

Animal Welfare Strategy for England

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell, and I thank the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) for securing this important debate today.

I come to this debate with the simple belief that animals should not suffer at our hands. That is why I welcome the animal welfare strategy, which was published last month. It reflects years of campaigning by animal protection organisations and growing public demand for change. It also marks a significant step forward, with real commitments on cages, crates, wildlife protection and welfare standards. I look forward to supporting the Government in making sure that those commitments are kept and change happens.

A strategy is only as good as its delivery. As organisations such as Humane World for Animals and Compassion in World Farming have made clear, without clarity about how and when the strategy will be delivered, there is a real risk that it will remain aspirational, rather than being the transformative instrument for change that we all hope it will be.

The scale of the challenge is stark. In 2024, around 280 million animals were kept in intensive farming in the UK, and that number is going in the wrong direction—an increase of 23 million since 2017. That growth has not been driven by rising domestic demand but by cost pressures, economies of scale and policy choices that continue to favour factory farming over higher welfare alternatives. That is why the strategy’s commitment to ending the use of cages and crates matters so much. Around 200,000 sows still spend weeks of their lives confined in farrowing crates, unable even to turn around, while around 8 million laying hens remain in cages that are little larger than an A4 piece of paper.

Warm words are not enough. The reforms must be time-bound, properly resourced and backed by financial support to help farmers transition. The Nature Friendly Farming Network and Compassion in World Farming are clear that improving animal welfare must go hand in hand with supporting farmers, rather than their being left to shoulder the costs of transition on their own. Crucially, we must ensure that the higher standards that will be required in the UK are applied to imports, so that any higher welfare British farmers do not find themselves being undercut. As others have said, mandatory welfare labelling for both domestic and imported goods is also vital.

There are welcome things in the strategy for animals in the wild, such as the imminent complete ban on the use of snares and the action on trail hunting, but there are crucial omissions in the strategy. It is silent on ending greyhound racing, which the Labour Government in Wales are doing. It also fails to mention the prohibition of imports of fur and hunting trophies, as well as regulation to limit the noise from fireworks in order to protect animals.

There is much to welcome in the strategy, but there are also some omissions. It acknowledges the need to reduce animal experimentation, yet we have heard that 2.5 million animal experimentation procedures were carried out last year. The Government are on the right path to replacing animal experiments with modern, reliable alternatives, judging from the plans that they announced in November. However, we need clear, time-bound plans that cover experiments on all types of animals.

Finally, none of these things will work without enforcement. Animal Aid, Cats Protection and many others warn that weak inspections and under-resourced regulators undermine even the best legislation. Whether we are talking about farms, laboratories or companion animals, standards without enforcement are standards in name only.

The public, the science and morality have aligned. We have the evidence and the expertise and, with this strategy, we have the momentum. The question now is how we can support the Government to match ambition with action, clear timelines, robust enforcement and real support for those doing the right thing. I urge the Government to ensure that the strategy delivers not just promises, but real lasting change for animals—and I will support them in doing so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

The global glut of milk has led to instability in price, which is difficult as many of our food prices are reliant on global markets. We have put in place the Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024, and we will be keeping a close eye on the sector to see what else we can do to ensure that we continue to support it.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

12. What steps her Department is taking to help support farmers to adopt higher animal welfare standards.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)]

Our animal health and welfare pathway scheme provides funding to farmers to improve the health and welfare of their livestock. It also supports veterinary visits to discuss health and welfare, and it provides capital grants for equipment and infrastructure to improve animal welfare. I am pleased that 7,000 farmers have already signed up to receive funding.

[Adrian Ramsay]

Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker.

The Animal Law Foundation’s report “The Enforcement Problem” shows that only around 2.2% of farmers were inspected in 2024 and only around half of complaints about farmed animal welfare led to any inspection. Even when non-compliance is detected by local authorities, only 2% of cases lead to prosecution. Allowing those breaches is terrible for animals and terrible for the farmers who do comply with the rules. How will the forthcoming animal welfare strategy ensure that credible complaints are consistently investigated, and that enforcement bodies have the resources and duties needed to act when animal welfare concerns are raised?

[Emma Reynolds]

I can confirm that further details on this issue will be set out in the animal welfare strategy, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising it. He is right that we need to have a closer eye on enforcement and work more closely with councils to ensure that there is better enforcement.

Animal Welfare Strategy

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I have put my order in at Booths and the local butcher!

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

We are indeed a nation of animal lovers, yet every year 200,000 sows are kept in farrowing crates where they cannot even turn around, while millions of hens are kept in tiny spaces no bigger than an A4 piece of paper. Those are cruel, cramped conditions that cause a short life of pain and suffering. Following the recent cross-party letter that I initiated, will the Secretary of State confirm that the animal welfare strategy will include an end to the cruel use of farrowing crates and cages and, importantly, support for farmers through this transition so that people can have confidence in so-called welfare-assured systems?

[Emma Reynolds]

I know that the hon. Member is active on the issue of farrowing crates. Some 50% of the sow herd give birth outside, but we are looking at what more we can do to deal with the rest that do not; that is a priority for the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

I am delighted to be at these questions for the first time, but I must say that the Conservatives have some brass neck. Under their Government, they could not even be bothered to spend the farming budget. We have got more Government money into the hands of farmers than ever before, and a record number of farmers are involved in environmental land management schemes. We have a proud record of supporting our farmers; the Conservatives sold them down the river on trade deals.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

3. What her planned timeline is for moving away from the use of farrowing crates and cages in farming.

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

We remain firmly committed to maintaining and improving animal welfare, and will work closely with the farming sector to deliver high standards. The use of cages and other close confinement systems for farmed animals is an issue we are currently considering and, as was announced by the Prime Minister, we plan to publish the animal welfare strategy by the end of this year.

[Adrian Ramsay]

I thank the Minister for her answer. Animal Equality estimates that around 200,000 sows in the UK spend nearly a quarter of their adult life confined in farrowing crates, which are metal barred cages that severely restrict their movement—they cannot even turn around. Some 75% of vets are concerned and research suggests that two thirds of the public oppose their use. When it comes to the animal welfare strategy, will the Minister commit to phasing out the use of all farrowing crates and the equally cruel cages for birds, and what practical steps will be put in place to support farmers with the transition?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

It is important to remember that 50% of the national sow breeding herd live freely and are not kept in these kinds of cage systems at all, which I think shows the way forward. It is very important that we work with the industry to see how we can move away from the use of farrowing crates and create more flexible alternatives that are available to be introduced in a practical and pragmatic way.

Independent Water Commission

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I pay tribute to the young people of my hon. Friend’s constituency. Young people famously care about the environment, and they are devastated to see the scale of pollution in our waterways that she described. We have taken all these steps and put in place the building blocks for change within a year of winning the general election. The previous Government had 14 years. They could have done exactly the same thing in any one of those 14 years, but, as is shown by the absence of the shadow Secretary of State, they just did not care enough.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

This Government-commissioned review looked at how to tinker with the Conservatives’ failed privatised monopoly system, but the truth is that it is a moribund model that has resulted in billions being paid out to shareholders and billions in debt being loaded up, and in crucial infrastructure being neglected, meaning that sewage is regularly pumped into our rivers and seas. Does the Secretary of State accept that the cost of that failure must be part of the calculation of the cost of bringing water into public hands, where it belongs, and that figures like £100 billion are grossly inflated by those who do not think the water industry should pay for its greed and terrible mismanagement of our water system?

[Steve Reed]

I am afraid that the Green party’s proposals would mean paying £100 billion of taxpayers’ money to the owners of the water companies. That money would have to be taken away from the national health service. It would take years to unpick the current ownership models, during which time pollution in our rivers would get much worse, not better. We know it does not work, and we have only to look north of the border to see it; under the nationalised model in Scotland, pollution is worse, not better. The hon. Member is talking about cutting the national health service, giving £100 billion to the owners of the current water companies and making pollution far worse. That does not sound very green to me.

Animal Welfare in Farming

Adrian Ramsay 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.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member agree that, through the Government’s programme of planning reform, we must not create any loopholes that could be exploited to facilitate the destructive, large-scale farming operations that he refers to?

[Adrian Ramsay]

I strongly agree. As we all closely scrutinise the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, we need to look carefully at whether loopholes are creeping in that will allow horrific developments such as more mega-farms to happen at a greater scale.

Mega-farms are bad for animals, bad for nature and bad for people, and not at all necessary for food security—that is a key point. The UK already meets 100% of its recommended protein needs, so these mega-farms are surely being developed with exports in mind. UK pigmeat exports have grown by 4% in the past year, driven by increased shipments to China. Methwold was a line in the sand, a signal that local communities will not accept industrial so-called farming that sacrifices everything for profit. To stop its unchecked proliferation, we need the Government to put their own line in the sand and say, clearly, that this must stop.

To pick up on the point made by the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), as we debate domestic welfare standards, we must also remain vigilant about how international trade could undermine them. Since leaving the European Union, the UK’s rating in the World Animal Protection index has been downgraded, reflecting growing concern that our historical leadership on animal protection is under threat. In upcoming trade deals with the US, India and the Gulf, there is a real risk that our markets will be opened to products produced in systems that would be illegal in the UK.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government need to undertake a strategic review of UK border controls to ensure that UK food security is protected from the introduction of diseases such as foot and mouth, as we have had on the continent, or any other exotic disease?

[Adrian Ramsay]

I agree with the hon. Lady, who speaks with first-hand experience of the farming sector.

Around 6 million breeding sows in the US are confined in gestation crates, which are banned in the UK. More than 70% of laying hens are still kept in barren battery cages. US beef can be produced using growth-promoting hormones, and antibiotic use in livestock is up to five times higher than in the UK. Such practices not only cause immense suffering, but undermine our farmers and our food safety standards. That is why we must commit to banning imports produced to standards that would not comply with those in the UK. We must also defend the hard-won ban on live animal exports, a recent step forward that must not be weakened under trade pressure. Our values do not end at our borders, and neither should the protections that we afford to animals.

Let us not forget that cruelty is not limited to land-based farming. Investigations by Compassion in World Farming and others have exposed horrific conditions in offshore salmon farms. Our high-end salmon from romanticised Scottish fish farms often has deeply unpalatable origins: salmon are cramped into cages where they suffer from lice, disease and injury, mortality rates are shockingly high and immense pollution pours into once-pristine marine environments, threatening wild fish populations. The farms are intensive by design, prioritising scale and profit over animal protection and environmental sustainability. We need a moratorium on new intensive aquaculture permits and a rapid transition to higher-protection, lower-impact systems. I hope the Minister will address that point in his response.

That brings me to the last substantive area that I want to discuss before concluding: the less-visible consequence of industrial farming. Due to cramped and unhygienic conditions, disease outbreaks are controlled with routine antibiotics, but evidence shows that that fuels antimicrobial resistance in consumers and presents a dire global health risk. The World Health Organisation has warned that antibiotic resistance could become a bigger killer than cancer by 2050, and farming practices are fuelling that trajectory.

Animal protection in farming is not a niche concern, but a public health issue, a climate issue, a biodiversity issue and a moral issue. Polling consistently shows strong public support for ending cages, crates and other cruel practices, which are unnecessarily barbaric, tragically wasteful and entirely avoidable. The public are ahead of the Government on this issue: more than 80% support a ban on cages for laying hens. The number of Members here shows the force of support for legislation to catch up.

This debate is about system change, not demonising farmers. We must bring farmers with us through clarity, fair incentives and certainty about the direction of travel. They should be supported to make adjustments on their farms, which is another reason why I strongly defend the preservation of the environmental land management schemes’ animal protection grants, and I urge the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to commit to that being a core part of the sustainable farming incentive, not an add-on. The Welsh Government’s animal health and welfare framework sets out the admirably worthy ambition that all animals should have a good life, even if a short one.

As we look ahead, I urge the Minister to recognise that real leadership on animal protection requires action on multiple fronts, including banning farrowing crates and cages, mandating method of production labelling to inform consumers, and strengthening enforcement through higher penalties, independent inspections and proper resourcing. It means defending our domestic standards in international trade and ensuring that imports produced using sow stalls, barren battery cages or hormone-treated beef are not waved through in deals that betray British values. Above all, we must confront the fact that more than 70% of farmed animals in the UK are reared in intensive conditions. That is not sustainable, ethical or inevitable.

The Government should set procurement targets to reduce meat from industrial systems, promote more plant-rich diets and reward farmers who are working with, not against, nature. In aquaculture too, we need environmental impact assessments, legal protection at slaughter, mandatory CCTV and protection standards equal to those for land animals. Those are not radical demands; they are practical, evidence-based steps towards a kinder, fairer and more resilient system that reflects the compassion of the public, supports responsible farmers and enhances the UK’s position as a global leader in animal protection.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate, which, due to the delayed start, will now conclude at 4.31 pm, subject to there being no further Divisions. We will start with a four-minute time limit on speeches, which may have to drop if there are many interventions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adrian Ramsay]

Sir John, I believe that I have two and a half minutes, under the updated timings for this afternoon.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Yes.

[Adrian Ramsay]

Thank you Sir John, Mr Vickers, and everybody who has contributed this afternoon on this important topic. We have seen how much interest there is across the House in driving up the animal welfare standards and I very much appreciate the Minister’s response, which set out the plans he already has in train.

I want to respond briefly to some of those points. On the Minister’s plans to review farrowing crates and cages, I look forward to seeing the outcome of that—I think everyone here today does—and I hope there are some big steps forward as a result. I was pleased to hear the answer in relation to maintaining standards in trade, but I did not quite hear the Minister go so far as to say that the Government will not allow imports of products that do not meet UK standards. I would invite him to do that. On enforcement, I did not quite hear the Minister address the need for higher penalties, independent inspections and proper resourcing of agencies for when standards of welfare are breached. That is critical.

Lastly, on size: I take the Minister’s point that it is not the only factor, but look at the size of the Methwold application—it would have involved 870,000 chickens and 14,000 pigs. How could welfare be maintained at that size, with a tiny handful of staff and a huge impact on sewage and pollution? Given the proliferation of mega-farms, those issues must be tackled.

Question put and agreed to. 

Resolved,  

That this House has considered animal welfare standards in farming.

Environmental Protection

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. I have had no indication that the Foreign Secretary intends to come to the House to make a statement, but I am sure that the Table Office will be able to advise him on how he might pursue the matter further.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to correct the record following my intervention on the New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill on Friday. I said:

“Regulations were due to come into force in 2016 that would have required all new homes to have zero carbon standards. Those regulations were scrapped by the coalition Government.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 631.]

In fact, regulations that would have required all new homes to have zero carbon standards were due to come into force in 2016, but they were watered down by the coalition Government in 2014, and the requirement for all new homes to have zero carbon standards was scrapped. What was left of the watered-down regulations was subsequently scrapped by the following Conservative Government in 2015.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order and for placing his correction of his earlier statement on the record.

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

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Good morning, everyone. I will highlight two key points about new clause 28, which concerns what happens when companies that have gone into special administration come out of it. Subsection (1) refers to considering

“the merits of changing the law to provide that a water company exiting a special administration regime becomes a company mutually owned by its customers.”

Subsection (2) states that that would involving considering

“the general merits of mutual ownership of water companies in such circumstances, and…what model of mutual ownership would be most suitable.”

We are not saying that companies have to be this or that; we are just advocating considering this possibility. Private companies have made an absolute mess of our water sector, have added no value over the past 36 years and have ramped up nearly £70 billion of debt. When the companies come out of special administration, we have an opportunity to do something different and not to repeat the mistakes of the past. I want the Committee to take that on board. We are not asking for a commitment; we are just asking for consideration. Hon. Members all know how badly the private companies have treated us, our rivers and our communities.

These companies are monopolies, so they have absolute power. Unfortunately, our regulators have completely failed in their task. If they have failed in the task, and if we do not have absolute confidence in the regulators—I do not think that anybody who will be voting today does—we must not give water back to the private sector.

Globally, this is standard. It is what the rest of the world does with its water sector. Even in the US, the vast majority of the water sector is mutually or municipally held. Chile may be the one shining example of private capitalism that we can point to in this regard, but there are almost no other countries in the world that do as we do. We are asking the Committee to do what is standard, rather than what is unusual.

The Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), has written about the benefits of the mutual ownership model, which he states forces water companies

“to operate in the interests of consumers; where environmental considerations such as disposal of sewage would take precedence over profit.”

That is our request. I rest my case.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

For several decades, the water companies have been able to profit from failure. There is a strong groundswell of opinion among the public, across political persuasions, that real action must be taken and that if there has been real failure, water companies must not just be allowed to carry on operating in the private sector. I welcome the hon. Member’s amendment; mutual ownership is clearly one alternative model. Does he agree that full public ownership is another option that should be investigated in these circumstances?

[Charlie Maynard]

What I really like about our proposal is that the companies are coming out of special administration, so it does not cost anybody anything: the equity of the shareholders has been written off. We often hear that it would not be a good idea, because it would cost too much to buy the companies out. Under our proposal, we would not need to buy them out, because we are advocating this only where companies are going into special administration. We are advocating a mutual model and—I say respectfully to the hon. Member—only that. That is what is on the table today, and that is what we are after.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

Yes. We have ruled out nationalisation, but all other forms of ownership are in the scope of the Cunliffe review. I stress, however, that in a scenario in which a company was exiting special administration, it could go into mutual ownership if the organisation in question had sufficient funds and could ensure that the company, or parts of it, could continue to properly carry out its activities related to water. Of course, no one would want, in any situation, to transfer to a company incapable of operating and providing water.

It is important to emphasise that it would not be appropriate for the Government to dictate the terms of exit from a SAR, as that would interfere with the conduct of the court-appointed administrator and their statutory objectives.

[Adrian Ramsay]

I thank the Minister for the helpful clarification that the Cunliffe review will consider ownership models, including those that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale has advocated. Will the Minister clarify why the Government are not permitting the Cunliffe review to consider full public ownership as one of the options? Why would they not allow an open assessment of all the potential options, especially given that, as we have heard, public ownership is so common in countries around the world for what is a natural monopoly?

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Maynard]

The point about “relevant time” is fair and deserves to be clarified. I completely agree on the issue of statutory consultees and have no issue with that either—that would make much more sense, because there is a real failure in that regard.

I will go a step further—I have lived experience in this regard—and give a special shout-out to Thames Water employee Richard Aylard, who for two years dutifully showed up every six weeks with West Oxfordshire district council to hash through these issues. I learned a lot from him and am grateful to him, as well as to Jake Morley, Lidia Arciszewska, Phil Martin, Laurence King, Alaric Smith and Alistair Wray. They sat through all that, and we all learned together. It is important that everybody knows what came out of those meetings. When sewage treatment works’ capacity is calculated—they are very much under-capacity in my patch and, I am sure, in those of other hon. Members—there are four criteria. The first is the population or population equivalent, which is normally optimistically understated. The second is per capita consumption. Thames Water has a high per capita consumption when it suits the company and a low per capita consumption when it suits the company, so again that is understated.

The third is the Environment Agency multiplier, which is typically 3.0, and is discounted far too often. When there is a known record of spills, Thames Water is still allowed to discount the EA multiplier, often from 3.0 down to 2.4; that is a 20% cut, which means that the capacity can be 20% less. That is a real problem, and it is being done repeatedly on sewage treatment works that have dumped sewage left, right and centre for years.

The fourth criterion is infiltration. Some 47% of the capacity of west Oxfordshire’s big nine sewage treatment works comes from infiltration. That means that our pipes are leaking. There is not enough science on this matter. If we were to put in flow meters, we would have the information, but it seems that we Lib Dems are the only team in the room, alongside the hon. Member for Waveney Valley, that advocates flow meters. If we want to solve these problems, we have to get serious about the information.

[Adrian Ramsay]

I thank the hon. Member for the new clause. We all recognise the situation he describes. In East Anglia, planned housing growth over the coming decades outpaces available water resources. In my constituency, we already have a water resource zone in Hartismere where business operations and planned business growth are being restricted by the water available. He is addressing some of the important points about water companies’ being able to take responsibility, but do we not also need a joined-up approach? The planning system must be used to address the issues by means of stricter water efficiency requirements, sustainable drainage systems and housing plans that are realistic given the available natural resources. Is there not a problem with just putting the ball in the water companies’ court, rather than taking a more joined-up approach?

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

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Tim Farron]

I am happy to accept many of the assurances that the Minister gave, particularly on the role of Government amendment 5—I learn something new every day. The Liberal Democrats retain concerns about the delay in implementation of some of the good things in the Bill. All the same, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 5, in clause 15, page 22, line 40, leave out subsection (11).—(Emma Hardy.)

This amendment reverses the “privilege amendment” made in the Lords.

Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Special administration for breach of environmental and other obligations

“(1) Section 24 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (special administration orders made on special petitions) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (2)(a) insert—

“(aa) that there have been failures resulting in enforcement action from the Authority or the Environment Agency on three or more occasions to—

(i) maintain efficient and economical water supply,

(ii) improve mains for the flow of clean water,

(iii) provide sewerage systems that are effectually drained,

(iv) comply with the terms of its licence, or

(v) abide by anti-pollution duties in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Water Resources Act 1991, or the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 (SI 2016/1154);”

(3) After subsection (2) insert—

“(2A) In support of an application made by virtue of subsection (1)(a) in relation to subsection (2)(aa), the Secretary of State must compile and present to the High Court records of—

(a) water pipe leaks,

(b) sewage spilled into waterways, bathing waters, and private properties, and

(c) falling below international standards of effective water management.”—(Adrian Ramsay.)

This new clause aims to require the Secretary of State to place a water company into special administration arrangements if they breach certain environmental or other conditions.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

New clause 31—Special administration orders: credit ratings—

“(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows

(2) In section 24 (special administration orders made on special petitions)—

(a) after subsection (1A) insert—

“(1B) Where a company which is a qualifying water supply licensee or qualifying sewerage licensee—

(a) is required, as a condition of its licence, to maintain two Issuer Credit Ratings which are Investment Grade Ratings from two different Credit Rating Agencies, and

(b) fails to comply with that requirement,

the Secretary of State must make an application to the High Court by petition under this section.”, and

(b) in subsection (2), after (c) insert—

“(ca) that the company—

(i) is required, as a condition of its licence, to maintain two Issuer Credit Ratings which are Investment Grade Ratings from two different Credit Rating Agencies, and

(ii) has failed to comply with that requirement”.”

[Adrian Ramsay]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I reiterate my apologies for not being able to be present at the Committee last week due to illness. I am pleased to be here today to speak to new clause 1, which would clarify that water companies may be subject to special administration measures should companies be guilty of significant and sustained environmental breaches.

I commend the commitments the Minister made during last Thursday’s sitting that the legislation will have a meaningful impact to ensure that water companies deliver for customers and for the environment. That echoes the Secretary of State’s pledge to the House in December to bring to the water sector

“reform that puts customers and the environment first.”—[Official Report, 16 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 78.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I emphasise to Committee members that special administration is the ultimate regulatory enforcement tool; as such, the bar is set high.

To respond to new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Waveney Valley, and new clause 31, tabled by the hon. Members for Witney and for Westmorland and Lonsdale, a water company can already be placed into special administration on performance grounds where it is, or is likely to be, in serious breach of its principal statutory duties or an enforcement order—in other words, where it is inappropriate for the company to retain its licence—as set out in section 24 of the Water Industry Act 1991.

The Secretary of State and Ofwat will consider all aspects of a company’s performance and enforcement record, including environmental and financial performance, when considering whether to pursue an SAR on performance grounds. Licence breaches, such as the loss of an investment-grade credit rating, are considered as part of that holistic review of a company’s performance. Ofwat will consider the circumstances around any loss of an investment-grade credit rating to identify the actions that the company must take to address associated licence breaches.

Regulators have a range of enforcement mechanisms to ensure the delivery of performance, including environmental performance. Water companies can also be required to make clear plans to address failures. I gently point out that this Bill does an awful lot to give more powers to address environmental performance. As we have discussed, our pollution reduction implementation plans address some problems relating to pollution.

Special administration must be a last resort, as it has significant consequences for a company’s investors. If special administration could be triggered without allowing a company to rectify performance issues and licence breaches, investors would have low confidence and would not provide the necessary funding. That could create instability in the market, potentially affecting the entire sector.

Although we recognise the concern behind these new clauses and others tabled by the hon. Gentlemen that highlight concerns that the system is not working, they address the symptoms rather than the underlying causes. In October 2024, the Government announced an independent commission that would be the largest review of the water sector since privatisation. That commission has a broad scope and will consult experts in areas such as the environment, public health, engineering, customers, investors and economics.

The governance of companies and regulatory measures to support financial resilience will be covered, including the operation of existing tools, such as the special administration regime. The review will report by quarter two in 2025. The UK and the Welsh Governments will respond and consult on proposals they intend to take forward. We expect those to form the basis of future legislation to tackle the systematic issues to transform the water sector fundamentally. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member is content to withdraw the proposed new clause.

[Adrian Ramsay]

I thank the Minister for her response. I appreciate that special administration would only happen in extreme cases. We have, however, repeated failures and neglect, including on environmental performance, from a number of water companies. That is why I wanted to make the provision explicit in the Bill that environmental neglect could be a reason for special administration. I take her point that there are reviews and wider plans underway. Although I am happy not to push this to a vote at this stage, I will take a close interest in how the situation progresses. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

Establishment of Water Restoration Fund

(1) The Secretary of State must, within 60 days of the passing of this Act, make provision for the establishment, operation and management of a Water Restoration Fund.

(2) A Water Restoration Fund is a fund—

(a) into which any monetary penalties imposed on water companies for specified offences must be paid, and

(b) out of which payments must be made for expenditure on measures—

(i) to help water bodies, including chalk streams, achieve good ecological status, and improve ecological potential and chemical status;

(ii) to prevent further deterioration of the ecological status, ecological potential or chemical status of water bodies, including chalk streams;

(iii) to enable water-dependent habitats to return to, or remain at, favourable condition;

(iv) to restore other water-dependent habitats and species, especially where action supports restoration of associated protected sites or water bodies.

(3) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, list the specified offences for the purposes of this section, which must include—

(a) any relevant provisions of the Water Resources Act 1991, including—

(i) section 24(4) (unlicensed abstraction or related works or contravening abstraction licence);

(ii) section 25(2) (unlicensed impounding works or contravening impounding licence);

(iii) section 25C(1) (contravening abstraction or impounding enforcement notice);

(iv) section 80 (contravening drought order or permit);

(v) section 201(3) (contravening water resources information notice);

(b) any relevant regulations under section 2 of the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 (regulation of polluting activities etc) related to water pollution;

(c) regulations under section 61 of the Water Act 2014 (regulation of water resources etc).

(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(5) The provisions in this section replace any existing provision for the sums received for specified offences, including in section 22A(9) of the Water Industry Act 1991 (penalties).—(Dr Hudson.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Hudson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The proposed new clause would introduce a legal requirement that money collected from water companies from financial penalties imposed by the Bill are legally required to be used by the water restoration fund. As with much of the Bill, the Government intend to build on the work begun by the previous Conservative Government. The water restoration fund is one pillar of that record that the Government would do well to advance. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what they plan to do with that excellent fund, which needs to be reinstated and progressed.

I have personally championed the water restoration fund, not only in my present role as shadow DEFRA Minister, but before that as a member of the Conservative Environment Network. I pay tribute to that body for its successful campaigning, which in led no small part to the previous Conservative Government introducing the excellent water restoration fund. In 2022, I was proud to sign the Conservative Environment Network’s “Changing course: a manifesto for our rivers, seas and waterways”. That was its first public declaration, setting out the ambition to introduce this policy recommendation.

In addition to the Conservative Environment Network, I would like to namecheck and thank the good folk of Wildlife and Countryside Link for their support and campaigning for the fund and this proposed new clause. I also pay tribute to the Angling Trust for the discussion we had on this matter, and give a big shout-out to our former colleague Philip Dunne, who was respected across the House. The former MP for Ludlow and Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee made assiduous efforts to see this fund introduced, as well as wider measures to protect our precious waterways.

As we have discussed with the Minister, there is considerable consensus on what we can do collectively and on a cross-party basis to protect and nurture our watercourses and waterways. I hope the Government will take forward and continue the water restoration fund because it is pivotal to what we are trying to do.