River Habitats: Protection and Restoration

Ashley Fox 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 Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill

Ashley Fox Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 4th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) on introducing this private Member’s Bill. As he is a veterinary surgeon, I know that this topic is close to his heart, as it is close to the hearts of many hon. Members.

The hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) spoke with passion and paid tribute to Selaine Saxby, the former Member for North Devon who brought this Bill forward in the last Parliament, and I thank him for that tribute. The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) quoted Mahatma Gandhi to great effect. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) rightly pointed out that the Bill extends to Scotland, and that sections 1 to 4 apply to Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) reminded us how important animal welfare is to all our constituents, and the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) reminded us that while our animal welfare laws in Britain are world leading, we can always do better. Finally, the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) paid tribute to those many charities in her constituency that dedicate themselves to improving animal welfare.

Britain is a nation of animal lovers, and the Conservatives are proud of our record in Government of improving animal welfare. In the last Parliament, we banned the keeping of primates as pets, introduced pet abduction as a specific criminal offence, increased the penalties for animal cruelty, banned the export of livestock for slaughter or fattening, and recognised animal sentience in law, through the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022. The establishment of the Animal Sentience Committee ensures that all legislation passed by this House considers the principle of animal sentience. In 2020, we introduced Lucy’s law, which banned the third-party sale of puppies and kittens. These regulations helped to protect animals from being kept in shockingly poor conditions, separated from their mothers at a young age and deprived of human or animal interaction for most of their lives.

The animal welfare Bill before us today is another example of doing the right thing to protect those pets that we all love. Many charities have been tirelessly campaigning for this legislation for many years, including the British Veterinary Association, the Dogs Trust, the RSPCA, Four Paws, Cats Protection, Blue Cross, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation.

The Bill aims to close existing loopholes that are used far too often by dishonest breeders and smugglers to disguise commercial imports of cats and dogs as non-commercial movements, in a bid to avoid compliance with existing welfare standards. I welcome raising the minimum age at which cats and dogs can be imported to six months. That will curtail the ability of unscrupulous puppy smugglers to bring those puppies into the UK.

The Bill also further restricts the import of heavily pregnant animals. The Dogs Trust has seen a record 600% increase in the number of heavily pregnant bitches intercepted at the border since 2021. In preparing for this debate, I have read about the most appalling cases of pregnant animals being transported in cramped conditions to give birth, with little food or water. This barbaric practice can permanently damage the health of both the mother and the puppies or kittens.

Similarly, we support the decision to cap the number of animals transported non-commercially at five per vehicle, rather than five per person as at present. That will close another loophole exploited by smugglers that allows them to transport several dozen animals in one trip, claiming ownership of five per person.

I am equally glad to see this legislation ban the import of dogs and cats with non-exempted mutilations into Great Britain. According to animal welfare charities such as the RSPCA, incidents of ear cropping have skyrocketed twentyfold in the last decade. We on the Conservative Benches are committed to ending that horrible practice. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), who, like the hon. Member for Winchester, is a veterinary surgeon and a passionate advocate of that reform. Of course, mutilation is not limited to dogs, and this legislation will also outlaw the declawing of cats. That is another horrible procedure that has no medical basis, and we support that measure.

This is a good Bill. Its measures are well considered, backed by experts and charities and designed to implement positive change to protect our beloved pets. I am pleased to confirm on behalf of the Opposition that we support this Bill, and I sincerely hope it will gain the support it deserves from the whole of the House.

Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Ashley Fox Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 4th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) for introducing the Bill, which has enjoyed wide support from Members across the House.

The hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) reminded us of the need to keep control of dogs on paths and country lanes. The hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) stressed the importance of these improved protections for her farmers, as they are for farmers in Somerset. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) emphasised the need for responsible access to the countryside, about which I agree. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) told us about the need for strengthened police powers.

The hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) took us on a gentle country ramble in his speech, and told us that his constituency is entirely urban and he knows little of farming. Let me tell him not to worry, because he is clearly eminently qualified to be Labour’s next Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—he could scarcely know less or do worse than the current incumbent.

I pay tribute to those groups that have long championed this reform. They include the National Sheep Association, the RSPCA, the British Veterinary Association, the National Farmers Union and the all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare.

As I have already mentioned once today, Britain is a nation of animal lovers and the Conservatives are proud of our record in Government of further improving Britain’s world-leading position on animal welfare. This Bill follows in that proud tradition, because livestock worrying is a blight on our countryside and a blight on our farmers. In a recent survey by the National Sheep Association, 87% of respondents said they had experienced a dog attack on their livestock in the past 12 months. One in 20 of those respondents said that they had experienced between 10 and 30 such attacks, which is truly appalling.

These attacks cause distress and injury to livestock and, in the most extreme cases, they can cause the death of animals. That is not only traumatic for farmers, but it can be expensive too. NFU Mutual data shows that insurance claims for dog attacks on farm animals exceeded £1.8 million in 2023. Farmers have enough to worry about with this Government’s new family farm tax, without the additional burden of attacks on their livestock by dogs.

The Bill makes several improvements to existing law. First, it introduces a vital distinction between livestock worrying and attacking. This change will help to strengthen enforcement where serious harm has occurred. Clause 2 expands police powers to seize dogs they reasonably expect to have been involved in such offences. This important amendment helps to close existing legal loopholes and ensures swift police action to prevent further harm.

Clause 3 empowers police and veterinary professionals to take samples or impressions from wounded animals or suspected dogs to aid criminal investigations. This change will make it significantly easier to gather evidence and bring charges. The National Farmers Union has rightly championed the measure, noting that many livestock worrying incidents go unreported due to a lack of confidence in enforcement. The possibility of using DNA testing could be a game changer for successful prosecutions, and I urge the Government to support further research and work with police forces to implement the results.

Clause 4 allows officers with a warrant to search properties for dogs believed to be involved in an attack. This is a crucial power to ensure justice is served and will help end the widespread perception among farmers that little can be done once an attack occurs. Another major improvement is the inclusion of roads and public paths within the legislation’s scope. Livestock are often moved between fields using country lanes. Under current rules, if an animal is attacked outside a field, the burden unfairly falls on the farmer. This Bill corrects that and rightly places responsibility on dog owners to always control their pets near livestock.

The Bill broadens the definition of livestock to include camelids, such as alpacas and llamas, which are increasingly part of rural enterprises. I particularly welcome that clause, especially on behalf of establishments such as the Animal Farm Adventure Park in Berrow, in my constituency.

The Bill introduces many essential enforcement powers that will allow our police to crack down on worrying, but we must not forget about prevention. Responsible dog ownership is key. The previous Government’s working group brought together police, stakeholders and welfare organisations to improve education on how to keep pets and livestock safe. In Wales, a 64% drop in livestock worrying incidents between 2023 and 2024 has been credited to outreach campaigns, dog training courses and effective rural crime teams. We must continue to amplify educational messages such as those in the country code. I call on the Government to make sure they continue that vital work and to look at how we might further encourage responsible dog ownership.

My constituency has a large farming community, and I have seen at first hand the impact of livestock worrying on my constituents. I recently met Austen Lockyer, who farms in my constituency. He told me that he struggles when irresponsible owners allow their dogs off leads on public footpaths through his fields, treating them like recreation grounds and worrying his sheep. I know the Bill will be a comfort to him and those like him and that we are acting to shift the burden of responsibility to dog owners.

I am pleased to have supported the Bill since it was introduced and through Committee, and it is a pleasure to stand at the Dispatch Box and confirm that the Opposition support the Bill in full. I urge colleagues from all parties to support the Bill and to bring an end to the scourge of livestock worrying in rural communities.

English Wine Production

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Katie Lam]

The hon. Gentleman is a fantastic champion of our Unionist and one nation principles. The best thing that our friends, brothers and sisters in Northern Ireland can do is to purchase English wine and drink it. That is a win for all concerned.

British wines are now exported to 45 different countries. There are healthy markets in Norway, Japan, America, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Hong Kong and South Korea, to name but a few. We now have over 1,100 registered vineyards and more than 240 wineries.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

One of those many vineyards is the Oatley vineyard in my constituency, run by Ned Awty and his family. Mr Awty raised with me, on a recent, pleasant visit, that small brewers and cider makers benefit from a duty relief scheme to encourage production. Would my hon. Friend join me in asking the Minister to extend that scheme to small vineyards?

[Katie Lam]

I will discuss later in my speech what support I think would be appropriate, so my hon. Friend will hear my thoughts on that in due course.

I am incredibly proud that the Weald of Kent boasts some of the best vineyards and wineries in the country. Across the nation, 4,200 hectares of land are under vine—more than double the area just a decade ago. It is no coincidence that even French producers are quickly buying up land in southern England. They recognise the opportunity here, and so should we.

Our English vineyards are not centuries-old family estates, handed down through the generations, like on the continent. They are new businesses, built on entrepreneurial risk, with eyewatering start-up costs, and land that is among the most expensive in Europe. The vineyards springing up in Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Hampshire and beyond are often founded by families who have risked everything: buying land at a premium, planting vines in an uncertain climate—that we all experience—and investing in years of training, equipment and marketing before even a single bottle is sold. Many vineyards are warning that rising national insurance contributions, and the recent increase to minimum wage payments, have left them unable to reinvest in their businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: it is really important that we get the skills in place for the future. I recently had the pleasure of visiting Domaine Evremond and the Simpsons’ Wine Estate, and I was knocked out by them, frankly. They are not just vineyards, but symbols of confidence in the UK’s wine industry. They export half their produce to international markets, with Norway being the top destination. The scale of investment and the ambition are inspiring and yet, exactly as hon. Members have said, we are probably only scratching the surface of what is possible. The opportunity for growth in relation to both domestic and international investment is enormous and absolutely aligns with the Government’s broader mission of boosting economic growth and global trade.

We are committed to working together with the sector to support the ambitions for growth and exports. We are also focused on ensuring that the growth translates into high-quality, sustainable jobs in rural communities, exactly as the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) suggested. I am talking about jobs that support families, strengthen local economies and preserve our countryside.

We are working closely with stakeholders to improve the English protected designation of origin and protected geographical indication schemes. One exciting possibility under consideration is the creation of a separate sub-category to allow alternative production methods under the PDO scheme, which would further broaden the appeal of our wines and open up new market opportunities. My officials are engaging with local producers, including those in the constituency represented by the hon. Member for Weald of Kent, to support an application for formal recognition of distinctive regional areas such as the Kent Weald. This initiative aims to highlight the region’s unique geological and agricultural characteristics, which contribute to the exceptional quality of its produce. By talking with stakeholders on the ground, the Government are ensuring that the application reflects the authentic identity and heritage of Kent’s landscapes. Such recognition not only promotes regional pride, but enhances market opportunities for local producers, reinforcing the area’s reputation both nationally and internationally.

A number of questions were asked, and I will try to address them. The hon. Member asked about the possibility of a wine tourism relief. We are very interested in linking the production to the tourism offer, and I understand that WineGB is about to launch a campaign for a wine tourism relief. I cannot make any commitments today, because it is a Treasury issue, but certainly, it is something that we are interested in looking at. On my visits, I was very struck by the ingenuity and entrepreneurial zeal of the winemakers in linking it to a really sophisticated tourism offer—I think that when I visited, they were hoping they would not get too much rain over that weekend; it now seems extraordinary we should even be thinking about rain. But this shows how it is possible to transform not just the wine production area itself, but the local economy: the local pubs, hotels and so on. It is really exciting.

The hon. Lady also asked about packaging and the extended producer responsibility, which has been a long-running issue. I can tell her that the latest set of fees will be announced on Friday, so that should bring some certainty, I hope. She also asked about transformation. That is a complicated issue, which we will look at when we come to the third phase of wine reforms. However, I can assure her that any wine that is imported into the UK but not transformed—if it is shipped in bulk and only bottled in the UK, but not transformed—cannot be marketed as being made in England, or similar. We are very clear about that.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Small cider producers in Somerset benefit from a duty relief scheme. I realise that the Minister is about to conclude his remarks, but he does not appear to have touched on the subject of duty relief for small vineyards. Will he at least give a commitment that he will talk to the Treasury about that, because it seems illogical that small brewers and small cider producers benefit from duty relief but small vineyards do not?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to stray into Treasury matters. What I will observe is that the 8.5% limit is part of the health approach, and I think we will stick to that.

To conclude, the UK wine sector is a source of confidence, growth and success. I am committed to working with it—and have very much enjoyed working with it so far—every step of the way to drive growth, boost exports and ensure that rural communities across the UK share the benefits of its success. When we see the climate being transformed before our eyes, that produces a lot of challenges for the food sector in general, but this is an opportunity that, it seems to me, we should really seize.

I again thank the hon. Member for Weald of Kent for securing this debate. In English Wine Week, it is especially important that we recognise the passion, progress and future of this vital industry. We are committed to supporting the English wine industry by listening to its concerns and acting upon them, and by working collaboratively towards common goals.

Question put and agreed to.

Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 21st May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. Farming plays an important role in the local economy of North Somerset. Since being elected last year, I have met scores of hard-working farmers beset by a wide range of issues, not least rural crime and the inadequate protections currently provided to their livestock—their livelihoods. I pass on my thanks to the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for introducing the Bill, and to the Minister for supporting it.

Farming is not just an industry. It is a way of life that shapes our landscapes, sustains our rural economy and preserves the ancient character of our communities, yet farmers I have spoken with have too often told me harrowing tales of losses sustained during dog attacks. According to data provided by the NFU, last year alone an estimated £1.8 million-worth of animals were killed or severely injured across the UK due to dog attacks. Behind every one of those incidents is a farmer who has had to deal with the financial and emotional toll of such attacks.

Farmers in my constituency will be grateful for the certainty and security that the Bill will provide. It is not about punishing dogs or pet owners. As an animal lover myself, I could never support any such legislation. We all value our countryside and our right to walk and explore the land, but with those rights come responsibilities. The right to roam must never mean the right to cause harm. By making clear the consequences for irresponsible behaviour, we encourage responsible dog ownership, which is good for both farmers and dog owners.

The Bill will give police the power to collect evidence and seize dogs when needed. It equips law enforcement to act swiftly and effectively. When people know that the law has teeth, they think twice about conducting themselves irresponsibly. Farmers have waited long enough for such measures. This is practical, balanced legislation that will finally give farmers the peace of mind they deserve.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for introducing this important legislation.

Farming plays an important role in my constituency. Livestock worrying can cause serious injury, immense suffering and, in the worst cases, death to farm animals. These incidents are not only traumatic for farmers but result in significant financial losses. According to data from NFU Mutual, insurance claims for dog attacks on farm animals exceeded £1.8 million in 2023.

This Bill makes several improvements to the existing law. First, it creates a distinction between worrying and attacking livestock. That is important, because it allows the strengthening of police powers to respond more effectively to actual attacks. Currently, it is difficult for the police to collect evidence following an alleged attack. It is too easy for an owner to prevent police from collecting evidence, such as by taking samples of blood on fur. The Bill fixes that, ensuring that officers can act to collect evidence so long as they have reasonable grounds to believe an attack has happened.

The Bill will also allow officers to seize and detain a dog that is believed to have caused an attack. Unfortunately, too many dogs that worry livestock are what we might refer to as repeat offenders. This measure makes it easier to prevent the most dangerous dogs from causing further harm to livestock.

Perhaps the most important element of the Bill is the inclusion of roads and public paths within the scope of the existing legislation. As anyone who has ever tried to drive down a country lane will know, it is not uncommon for livestock to cross the lanes between fields. At the moment, if an animal is attacked when it is not in one of the farm fields, the responsibility falls on the farmer, rather than the owner of the dog, to prevent the worrying. Including roads and paths in this legislation is a simple measure to close this loophole and ensure that dog owners have to control their dogs around livestock at all times.

Lastly, I support the move to include camelids within the definition of livestock, which will protect the llamas and alpacas at the Animal Farm Adventure Park in Berrow in my constituency. I am delighted to support the Bill and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for bringing it forward.

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury is my colleague and friend on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I congratulate her on reintroducing this important Bill. I know that she is personally and professionally dedicated to this matter.

Like many colleagues, I receive hundreds of emails from my constituents about animal welfare, and particularly the wellbeing and protection of farmed animals—we may not have a farm, but we care greatly about this issue. As a Londoner born and bred, I had not heard the phrase “livestock worrying” before the hon. Member asked me to serve on this Committee. I did know about incidents of animals being attacked on farms, but I was shocked to learn how widespread these incidents of dogs chasing, attacking or causing distress to livestock are, and about the financial and emotional impact of livestock worrying. I think we all agree that no animal should be made to suffer unnecessary pain, alarm or distress, and hearing the stories from Members on the Committee today has been moving and powerful.

This Bill is an important step to protect farm animals from dog attacks, strengthening police powers and promoting responsible dog ownership. As someone who was once the proud owner of a boisterous German shepherd called Prince, I know the importance of being a responsible dog owner, particularly with large dogs. For so many of us, treating animals, nature and our planet with care and respect is a mark of the type of society we want to be. That is why animal welfare and the protection of livestock is an issue that so often unites Members from across the House. I am therefore not surprised and am very pleased that this important Bill enjoys cross-party support and that the Labour Government are supporting it, to better protect the welfare of our livestock.

We should always strive for the highest possible animal welfare standards, so I welcome the Bill and congratulate the NFU on its hard work in lobbying on this important issue. I thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for reintroducing the Bill, for her efforts to bring it to this stage, securing cross-party support for these measures, and for saying the word “llama” to me more times this month than it has perhaps ever been said in the House before.

Sewage

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron]

I absolutely welcome the Act, as I said at the beginning of the debate. It is a step in the right direction; I just do not think that it is enough, and the hon. Lady makes the case as to why it is not enough. Her water company, Yorkshire Water, is one of four water companies that between them owe Ofwat £164 million in fines because of their failure, and Ofwat has so far claimed zero—none of that. There seems to be an awareness among water companies that Ofwat is not a regulator to be feared and therefore not one to be responded to. That is among the reasons why we need a new, much more powerful regulator that has the power, and uses it, to refuse to sign off on spending plans that prioritise the investor over the consumer and the environment.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and his party for bringing the motion. It is important that we improve the quality of our rivers and seas. Does he share my concern that in the Water (Special Measures) Act the Government refused to allow local areas to retain the money fined from water companies to improve the environment in that area? Were they able to do that, that would lead to a real improvement in the quality of our environment.

[Tim Farron]

I agree, and the hon. Member can check the record and see us voting with the Conservatives in Committee. He makes a good point: the communities most damaged by pollution should be the ones that receive investment from the fines—if, indeed, Ofwat ever bothers to collect them.

Alongside the need for regulatory reform, we propose a radical transformation of the ownership model. Privatisation of the water industry has been an expensive failure—35 years of huge debts and payouts to investors, 35 years of inadequate investment in our infrastructure. The Conservative promise of Britain becoming a shareowning democracy has turned into the predictable nightmare reality of British public utilities owned by billionaires and foreign powers—what an absolute disgrace. The end result is the rivers, lakes and seas in which we swim, fish, canoe, sail, work and play polluted by an industry now owned by those who took but would not give. Water companies need new models of ownership, transitioning to public benefit companies that are focused on environmental good, not profiteering, with funds from customers’ bills pumped back into upgrading and repairing infrastructure, not draining away in dividends.

We welcome the independent water commission chaired by Sir Jon Cunliffe, though we remain impatient given the time it will take to publish the commission’s findings, the further period of time it may take for the Government to do anything about them, followed by a legislative process and implementation period—we will be at the end of the Parliament before we know it. To be fair, with the commission the Government provide themselves with a second chance to bring in the ambitious changes that are needed, and we urge them not to miss this chance.

Ministers will remember with deep joy the 44 amendments that the Liberal Democrats proposed to the water Bill. In our submission to Sir Jon, I have sought to turn those amendments into a single set of proposals to restore our water industry to environmental and financial health, and to harness the amazing power of citizen scientists and volunteers up and down the country. It is why we called for the inclusion of water campaigners, such as WASP, Save Windermere, the Clean River Kent Campaign, Eden Rivers Trust and South Cumbria Rivers Trust, on water company boards. It is why we call for the Government’s welcome new sewage spills database to be a searchable tool, including retrospectively, so that we do not hamstring those brilliant volunteers who seek to hold the water industry and its regulators to account. Tens of thousands of people are giving their expertise, time and passion to clean up our waterways. Let us let them off the leash, equip them and empower them. I was sad to see Conservative and Labour colleagues refuse to support these measures during the passage of the Water (Special Measures) Act, but I hope that they will have a change of heart today.

In the motion before us, we specifically urge the establishment of a new system of blue flag status for rivers and chalk streams as a practical way to force water companies to be more accountable for the safety of the swimmers who use them and for the ongoing protection and flourishing of precious habitats and ecosystems.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

As my constituency contains the Rivers Axe, Brue, Parrett and Tone, together with countless streams, brooks and rhynes, it is of the utmost importance to my constituents that the water quality of our rivers is maintained and improved. The parish of Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge is a coastal resort, as are the villages of Berrow and Brean. It is important for the tourism industry, as well as the local people who enjoy those beaches, that we improve the quality of our bathing water, and I therefore welcome the Bill. We are told that it has four key aims:

“To block the payment of bonuses to executives who pollute waterways;

To bring criminal charges against persistent law breakers;

To impose automatic and severe fines for wrongdoing; and

To ensure independent monitoring of every”

—sewer overflow—“outlet.”

I welcome all those aims, building as they do on the work of the last Government to improve our water quality.

I want to speak in favour of new clauses 16 and 19. New clause 16, entitled “Establishment of Water Restoration Fund”, establishes the principle that fines should go towards environmental improvement rather than to the Treasury. I am somewhat curious as to why the Government would not support that, but perhaps the Minister can explain when she responds to the debate. In November 2024, Wessex Water, which serves my constituency, was fined £500,000 for polluting two rivers, one in Wiltshire and one in Somerset. That money should be used to improve the local environment; it should not be swallowed up by the Treasury.

New clause 19 states that when civil penalties are imposed, there should be an equivalent reduction in customer bills. That is important, because otherwise the water company that has been fined will simply pass on that fine to the consumers; the new clause would ensure that there was no penalty for the customer. I am curious, again, to know why the Government would oppose new clause 19—along with new clause 18—and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s explanation.

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

I thank the ministerial team for all their hard work in producing the Bill within six months of Labour’s election in July.

Is there anything more emblematic of the decline and mismanagement presided over by the last Government than the state of our rivers and waters? It was fascinating to hear from the shadow Minister that the Opposition seem suddenly to have realised that this is a bigger problem than they ever thought it was when they were in government. As we have heard from Members on both sides of the House, waterways throughout the country have been choked with record levels of sewage. In 2003, 39 sites in my constituency were polluted by Severn Trent Water and United Utilities. Across those sites, there were 2,579 sewage dumps—and what was the punishment for the bosses of those companies? Did any of them face imprisonment? Were their bonuses curtailed, or stopped entirely? Did they feel the hard edge of enforcement action? The answer is no.

Rural Affairs

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I am proud to represent the Bridgwater constituency, which has both urban and rural communities. It is plain to see that those living in the countryside do not enjoy the same quality of service as those living in town.

One of the greatest differences is in broadband and mobile signals. In today’s economy, access to fast, reliable internet is essential for any business, whether to receive orders or to complete VAT returns. When I questioned the Minister last month about funding for the shared rural network, he confirmed that the new Government will continue the plans of the Conservative Administration to extend access to rural communities. Since then, we have had disappointing news. Connecting Devon and Somerset, along with its partner Airband, is scaling back plans to provide fibre optic broadband to rural areas in my constituency and in others in Somerset. I have requested a meeting with the Minister on this matter, as it is of critical importance. If we are to ensure the prosperity of rural areas, investment in rural broadband and 5G must be a national priority.

Another issue that disproportionately affects our rural communities is flooding, which particularly affects our farmers. When farms flood, as they often do in Somerset, the damage to crops, infrastructure and livestock can be devastating. The Government need to improve how statutory bodies work together. Joining up their efforts would help us to predict floods better and prevent agencies from being overwhelmed when multiple flooding events occur. The Government should take a more proactive role in supporting farmers with better flood prevention measures, and ensure that compensation, when provided, is fair, accessible and timely.

The challenges of food security require us to invest in local agriculture and ensure that our farmers are thriving in an environment that values sustainable, reliable food production. The Government’s increase in inheritance tax for farmers will harm food production in our country. It is a poorly conceived attack on family farms, many of which are high in value—land, buildings and machinery—but produce a low return. Families who work hard to feed the nation should not be taxed out of existence by the Chancellor, but Labour’s family farm tax will make it impossible for many farmers to pass on their land to their children.

If I had had enough time, I would have addressed rural bus services—or the lack thereof—rural housing, especially for young families, and the provision of small rural schools. However, I will end by saying that with better policies for food security and farming, Britain can have a strong and vibrant countryside.

Proposed Salt Marshes: Pawlett Hams

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I will call Sir Ashley Fox to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates. At least one other Member has indicated that they wish to speak, and there may be interventions.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the environmental impact of the proposed salt marshes at Pawlett Hams and other sites.

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I welcome the Minister to her place.

I am grateful to have this opportunity to move the motion, which concerns an issue of great importance to my constituents in Bridgwater. I asked for this debate to discuss EDF’s plans to establish a salt marsh at Pawlett Hams in Somerset. The proposal was highly unpopular with the local community. In fact, it was difficult to find anyone who thought it was a good idea, and when I met representatives from EDF, even they seemed a little half-hearted about it.

Why, one might ask, does EDF, which is building the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station a few miles down the coast, want to flood 800 acres of beautiful Somerset countryside and turn it into a salt marsh? The answer is complex. When EDF was given planning permission to build Hinkley Point C, it was required to take measures to mitigate damage to marine life caused by the water intake pipes, which are situated in the Bristol channel and, as one might imagine, there is a risk of harm to fish, which might get sucked into them.

EDF originally set out three proposals to minimise the risk of harm to marine life. The first involved designing special low-velocity, side-entry water intake pipes, with a capped head design. These reduce the number of fish that are sucked into the pipe as they swim past the end. The second was a fish recovery and return system, which means that a good proportion of the fish that swim into the intake pipe are returned to the sea, with minimal injury. That is not a perfect system, but it is certainly one that will save the more resilient species.

The third was that EDF was required to install an acoustic fish deterrent, or AFD. This involves the installation of a number of underwater sound projectors that play a constant loud noise that is designed to stop fish approaching the area of the intake pipes. EDF now says that it is unable to install the AFD, because of engineering difficulties and health and safety risks to the divers who would need to maintain the system. To deviate from the AFD proposals, EDF has to submit a material change application. As part of the application, it is working with the Environment Agency to agree several compensatory habitat measures to deliver benefit to the estuary’s qualifying habitat.

EDF says that it is putting forward a mosaic of mitigation measures. Some of them seem sensible and beneficial to the natural ecosystem in and around the Severn estuary: for example, the creation of several hectares of seagrass in the estuary and a commitment to delivering 15 hectares of kelp forest. It is also considering upgrades to several weirs to benefit migratory fish. The most significant proposal, however, and the one that brings us to Westminster Hall today, is the creation of 800 acres of salt marsh.

At the beginning of this year, EDF consulted on the salt marsh being established in Pawlett Hams, in my constituency. Pawlett Hams is a precious ecosystem. EDF’s plans to flood the area with saltwater would endanger not just the land itself, but the myriad species that call it home. It would transform the biodiverse habitat into barren, species-poor salt marsh and tidal mud. What is most extraordinary about EDF’s plans is that the Hams is an area of great ecological importance. It forms part of the Bridgwater bay site of special scientific interest, which was first declared in 1989 and recognises the area as one of particular interest to science, due to the rare species of flora and fauna that it contains. There is a lush, biodiverse habitat for many animals in the Hams, including lapwings, redshanks, otters, water voles, water beetles, great crested newts and yellow wagtails. Those species would be driven out if the area was turned into a salt marsh. The Hams provide valuable grazing for local farmers that would also be lost.

EDF’s plan was a disaster, and even if it went ahead it was not clear how it would mitigate the problem of the fish that would be lost. I made my views abundantly clear to EDF over the months, so I was delighted when, a day after making a request for this debate, it announced that it is pausing its proposal. EDF says that it is now considering four other potential sites for salt marshes in the Severn estuary, at Kingston Seymour, Littleton, Arlingham and Rodley.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for all his detail and his excellent summary of exactly what is being proposed in Arlingham. The proposal was put to the people of Arlingham, they had a large meeting on Monday evening and, almost universally, there was a feeling that this was not a good idea for people there or for their landscape. Many of the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has put across are the same in Arlingham. It seems rather strange that the Arlingham site and salt marsh will somehow compensate for or mitigate the predicted loss of about 182 million fish; I do not think there is any way we can say that those two match each other. Although I support the principle of habitat creation and acknowledge the benefits of the salt marsh, does the Minister share my concern that EDF’s application to modify Hinkley Point C’s consent order seems like an unacceptably high price for an environmentally unique habitat to pay?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I will leave the Minister to answer those points, if I may.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I pay tribute, as I am sure the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) would, to the amazing community at Pawlett Hams, who campaigned ferociously, but in quite a gentle way, and single-mindedly to get its aims and dislike across. I hope that that is reflected in the comments made by the hon. Member for Stroud about the community; indeed, we have a meeting in the communities that I represent on Monday next week. It is the case that the communities feel that EDF and the Environment Agency may have been a little heavy-handed in their first approaches. They seemed to be rather fierce and not accepting of the fact that people have a view about their own community and its sustainability.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

The hon. Lady anticipates the next part of my speech.

As a new MP, it is tempting to believe that this change of heart by EDF is entirely due to my persuasive powers, but that is not the case. All credit must go to the Pawlett Hams Action Group, a genuine grassroots campaign that sprang up to defend the Hams. The group demonstrated the significance of the Hams by conducting wildlife surveys and collecting personal and historical testimonies. It also raised awareness of the issue through petitions, social media, community events such as a photography competition and collaboration with local schools. I pay tribute to the group’s co-ordinator, Judith Ballard, and to the other leading members, Moira Allen, Rachel and Molly Fitton, and Joy Russell. There are many others who worked hard to save the Hams so that it might be enjoyed for generations to come. I thank them all—perhaps they can help the hon. Members for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) and for Stroud (Dr Opher) in resisting unwanted salt marshes.

Although my constituents and I welcome EDF’s decision not to proceed with the plan, several outstanding questions need to be answered. My first question relates to the inclusion and, now, the planned removal of the AFD in the development consent order. That was included at the request of the Environment Agency. I want to know why it was included if, as we are now told, it is unsuitable for conditions in the Bristol channel. Related to that question, what was the process between the Environment Agency and EDF on agreeing that it should be removed?

To my local community, the process looks opaque. Some of my constituents believe that the AFD should remain as a condition of EDF being allowed to operate Hinkley Point C. I do not claim to have the technical knowledge to know whether it is a practical option or not—and the Secretary of State has yet to make formal decision—but it seems to me that EDF and the Environment Agency are putting together a package of mitigation measures in the hope that the deal will be signed off.

I want to know why, once the decision to explore the establishment of a salt marsh was made, Pawlett Hams was designated as the preferred site. As I said earlier, the Hams is recognised as a wetland of international importance. Turning it into a salt marsh is not a mitigation. It would be an intentional decision to cause environmental harm. It is a completely illogical and extraordinary choice by the Environment Agency. The view of many of my constituents is that the Environment Agency chose Pawlett Hams so that it could flood the land and save money on maintaining flood defences. I want to ask the Minister for an assurance that the Government will continue to maintain all the flood defences on the River Parrett.

Finally, I want to ask the Government to consider whether there might be a better way of delivering environmental improvements than through the Environment Agency. It was the Environment Agency that wanted to include an AFD in the initial development consent order. Now it apparently agrees that it should be removed, and is the prime mover behind this unwanted salt marsh. Having retreated from Pawlett Hams, it now wishes to inflict this on other parts of the countryside.

If an acoustic fish deterrent is truly impractical— I remain to be convinced—I would like to see the money saved, which would be tens of millions of pounds, put at the disposal of the local community to fund genuine environmental improvements. I want to see those decisions taken by democratically accountable bodies, such as Somerset Council and the local town and parish councils. In my view, they are more likely to spend the money wisely than the agency that thought that turning Pawlett Hams into a salt marsh was a good idea.