Agricultural Sector: Import Standards

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

I start by thanking the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) for securing this debate and opening it so excellently. It has offered Members from across the House the opportunity to discuss an issue that is central to our national interests and our values. The speeches we have heard today reflect a deep commitment across this House to our farmers, our food standards, animal welfare, the environment, and the integrity of British agriculture.

We have heard a range of contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst)—to whom I pay tribute for his expertise on the pig industry, and whom I thank for his work on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee—talked about the complexities of the global trade in meat, the importance of food security, and a sensible transition on husbandry regulations. He also touched on inappropriate antibiotic use, which I will speak about in due course. The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) talked about the importance of the grain and sugar sectors in his part of the world, and of transparency in labelling. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) and to her family on the farm. It is brilliant that she brings that expertise to the House of Commons, and I thank her for all she does. She talked about welfare standards, food security, and the importance of local food procurement.

The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), whom I also thank for his excellent work on the EFRA Committee, talked about the importance of food security and, again, transparency in food labelling. The hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), who is a proud advocate for high animal welfare standards, talked about the important bans that we uphold on hormone-treated beef and chlorine-washed poultry; I will touch on those in due course. Finally, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) spoke about the importance of both buying and exporting British. I thank him for his comments.

Standards are not abstract trade matters; they are questions of fairness, food security and moral duty. British farmers are rightly proud of producing food to some of the highest animal welfare, environmental and safety standards in the world. They do so not only to comply with the law, but because it is right. It is therefore indefensible to allow them to be undercut by imports produced to standards that would be illegal in the United Kingdom.

I am proud of the previous Conservative Government’s record on advancing animal welfare. We banned the export of live animals, including cattle, sheep, pigs and horses for fattening or slaughter, under the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024; increased the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years under the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021; and, importantly, enshrined animal sentience in UK law under the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, thereby establishing the Animal Sentience Committee. That means that any new legislation that we consider must pay due regard to animal welfare. I was proud to co-sponsor the Conservative-initiated Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025 to tackle the cruel puppy smuggling trade and the horrific practice of dog ear cropping.

In the United Kingdom, we have brilliant farmers who farm to the highest animal welfare standards, and we should be proud of that. As I have said many times in this House, we can be a beacon to the rest of the world. British farmers follow strict rules on banned growth promoters, on housing and welfare conditions, and on environmental protections. Those standards carry costs and responsibilities that farmers accept, because they reflect public values. The injustice arises when food produced to lower standards overseas is allowed to enter our market and compete directly with food produced under our higher rules. That does not raise global standards; it simply exports cruelty and imports unfair competition.

We Conservatives have consistently defended our standards. In 2024, when the Leader of the Opposition served as the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, she suspended trade talks with Canada, after Canada insisted on including hormone-treated beef. That decision sent a clear message that the UK will not compromise on important bans, such as bans on hormone-treated beef, ractopamine-treated pork, or—we have heard about these today—chlorine-washed poultry and bovine somatotropin-treated dairy, all of which remain illegal in the United Kingdom. Those practices merely hide substandard—unacceptable, in some cases—husbandry methods, and are not positive at all for animal or bird welfare. I was proud that the previous Conservative Government stood firm on the bans on such products in our negotiations with Canada, and I urge the current Government to maintain that firm position.

The United Kingdom has among the strictest welfare laws in the world. By contrast, countries such as Canada and the US still allow hens to be kept in battery cages. Here, 83% of eggs come from free-range or barn systems, and the Government have committed to phasing out all cages for laying hens by 2032. The Opposition have made it clear that we very much support banning cages or close confinement systems where there is clear scientific evidence that they are detrimental to animal and bird health and welfare. That is in keeping with much of the United Kingdom’s legislation on the use of cages and crates, which includes a law to ban keeping calves in veal crates, introduced in 1990; legislation banning keeping sows in close confinement stalls, introduced in 1999; and measures to ban battery cages for hens, introduced in 2012.

Under the Conservative Government, Ministers were clear that it was their ambition for farrowing crates to be no longer used for sows. Indeed, the new pig welfare code clearly states:

“The aim is for farrowing crates to no longer be necessary and for any new system to protect the welfare of the sow, as well as her piglets.”

I emphasise that last part. It is important that the industry is heard and, as we have heard today, that we have a sensible, workable, pragmatic transition that works and upholds animal welfare. Future trade deals must insist on core standards, or we risk encouraging systems that our own laws reject.

Transparency also matters; consumers should be able to see how their food was produced. In 2024, the Conservative Government consulted on improved welfare and origin labelling, but the Labour Government’s animal welfare strategy, released just before Christmas, offers only vague intentions on labelling; there is no timetable and no binding commitments. Clear, mandatory labelling would empower UK consumers and reward UK farmers who do the right thing.

The emergence in the UK of products that do not meet our animal welfare and environmental standards is potentially compounded by the alarming situation facing our national biosecurity. With disturbing reports of foot and mouth disease emerging abroad—including in Europe last year—African swine fever advancing up the continent of Europe, and the ongoing outbreaks of avian influenza and bluetongue virus in this country, we must maintain our vigilance. After raising concerns in Parliament on 17 occasions, I was pleased that the current Government finally listened and agreed to commit funding for the vital redevelopment of the Animal and Plant Health Agency’s headquarters in Weybridge, which was started by the Conservative Government. I thank APHA, which I visited again last month, for its tireless work, particularly in the face of the ongoing avian influenza situation.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I have the Animal and Plant Health Agency in my constituency—it is confusingly named the Weybridge centre, but it is actually in New Haw—I thank the shadow Minister for his advocacy on this issue, and the Government for putting in the funding for the redevelopment.

[Dr Hudson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his very kind intervention. He proudly stands up for that important institution, which I know the Minister has visited, as has the Minister in the other place. It is important that, cross-party, we support something that is so critical to our national security.

As we have heard today, the very real consequences of illegal meat imports for human and animal health are a disaster waiting to happen, unless the Government maintain vigilance and step up now. Our ability to detect and seize illegal meat imports at our borders is being tested to its limits. According to DEFRA, the amount of illegal meat seized between January and April 2025—72,872 kg—was close to the amount seized in the whole of 2024, which was 92,382 kg. Dover Port Health Authority alone has seized 367 tonnes since 2022. Given the ongoing threat, it is essential that sufficient funding is provided to our agencies at the border, and that routine certification surveillance and spot checks can be carried out at Dover and other ports, to prevent illegal meat and products of animal origin entering the country.

It is vital that—in addition to upholding standards, protecting our biosecurity and safeguarding animal welfare—we ensure that the United Kingdom has enough veterinary surgeons. At this point, I must declare both a professional and a personal interest: I am a veterinary surgeon, a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and a graduate of Cambridge Veterinary School. The UK does not train enough vets domestically. They play a vital role in animal health and welfare, which we have been talking a lot about today, but also in food safety, public health and disease control—all things that come into this debate on standards. That is why I am deeply concerned about the possible closure of Cambridge Veterinary School, as recommended by the council of Cambridge University’s school of biological sciences. I know the Minister is very aware of this issue, as I have raised it with her in the Chamber, and with her colleagues in DEFRA. We cannot maintain animal welfare or food security without adequate veterinary capacity, so I urge the Government to press Cambridge University to stop this short-sighted possible closure. In addition, the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 needs to be updated. Although that was mentioned in the Government’s animal welfare strategy, there was no timeline or urgency. Again, I urge the Government to act.

Sadly, the Government’s record on supporting farmers gives us cause for concern. Just look at their treatment of the sector, as instanced by the ill-judged and awful family farm tax, on which they have only partially U-turned. I do not believe that we are in the right place, and there is much more that we still need to do on that.

By permitting imports produced under weaker standards, the Government risk favouring overseas producers over British ones. Ministers say that they are passionate about animal welfare and food standards, and I take them at their word, but their record and their rhetoric tell a slightly different story. Their keenness to merge with EU standards is worrying, especially on animal welfare, given that our standards in the UK are higher. Returning to EU regulatory alignment would make us rule takers, not rule makers, preventing farmers from adopting innovations such as gene editing.

The Labour manifesto spoke about food security, but it failed to set out a clear plan to protect farmers from low import standards. The Conservative Government’s Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 laid the foundations for the development of disease and climate-resilient crops and the breeding of animals and birds that are resistant to harmful diseases such as avian influenza and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome. As I have mentioned, the landmark Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act, ended the inhumane export of live animals for slaughter or fattening. These are important achievements, yet the Opposition have concerns that these vital Acts may be repealed, watered down or weakened because of this Government’s pursuit of a reset with the EU. I hope the Minister can assure the House that those safeguards will remain intact and that we will not take a backward step on animal welfare and innovation in the agriculture and food security sectors.

We have already seen how sectors such as fishing can be treated as bargaining chips in international talks, with our UK fisheries sold away to Europe for 12 years to try—at this stage, in vain—to get access to the European defence fund. Farmers are watching closely and are understandably worried that agriculture could also be a bargaining chip. If import standards are watered down in the name of smoother trade or convenient deals, British farmers may lose out by being denied access to revolutionary tools such as gene editing and precision breeding that the EU is slow or reluctant to adopt. Moreover, animal welfare will be weakened, consumer confidence will be damaged and the long-term resilience of our food system will be jeopardised.

This is not about protectionism. It is about our values. Farmers are asking for a fair and level field on which to compete, which means import standards that reflect the standards required of British farmers and demanded by British consumers, as well as clear red lines in every trade negotiation, proper enforcement at our borders and no agreements that sacrifice agriculture for political expedience. Can I ask the Minister directly whether the Government will guarantee that no food produced to lower standards than those required of British farmers will be allowed into our market? Will they commit to not trading away our standards in future negotiations?

I would welcome the Minister’s response on the public procurement of food, which we have heard a bit about today. Sadly, the Government buying standards still have a loophole that allows public bodies to bypass high animal welfare standards on the grounds of cost. If we are to lead globally on animal welfare, we must uphold such principles here at home.

Import standards are fundamentally about trust—trust between farmers, consumers and the Government. British agriculture depends on that trust. Opposition Members will examine every agreement, every regulation and every concession that may risk undercutting our farmers and weakening our standards, or indeed compromising animal health and welfare. His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition urge the Government to support agriculture and defend the standards that the British people hold dear.

Independent Water Commission

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

The new ombudsman will have statutory powers to provide independent and free support to customers experiencing the kinds of failures that my hon. Friend describes; there are many others, of course. Previously, water was one of the only utilities that did not have that resource available, but it will do from now on. We have also taken steps and introduced measures to increase compensation for people who have experienced failure by their water company, with compensation at least doubling and in some cases increasing tenfold.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

The quality of a river is about not just the water that goes into it, but the maintenance of the river itself. My constituents have been failed over and over again by the Environment Agency in the maintenance of our waterways. Given the Secretary of State’s enthusiasm for breaking apart quangos, will he consider bringing powers away from the EA so that we can manage our rivers properly and effectively?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but I gently remind him that it was his Government who cut resources to the Environment Agency by 50%, which may well have had something to do with the fact that people were no longer there to enforce against the kinds of failings he talked about.

Thames Water

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

We are working towards resetting the entire regulatory framework, as the hon. Gentleman may have seen from Sir Jon Cunliffe’s report, published today. He is absolutely right, though: under the previous Government, the regulator was absolutely toothless. That is why one of the first pieces of legislation this Government passed was the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which gave the regulator the power it lacked previously to ban the unfair and unjustified multimillion-pound bonuses that so outraged the public as those companies profited from pollution.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his comments on continuity of service, which will provide some reassurance to my constituents. Thames Water has failed my constituents time and again; clearly, it needs investment. What is he doing to ensure that there is the confidence to invest in our water sector?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Part of making the sector more investable is ensuring that we have a robust, clear and predictable regulatory framework, which is what Sir Jon Cunliffe is working towards. The hon. Gentleman may have had a chance to look at the interim report that Sir Jon published today; if he has not, I recommend it to him. That is the way we create an investable water sector and bring in the money that will allow us to fix our broken water system once and for all.

River Thames: Unauthorised Mooring

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way in such an important debate. I entirely share her frustrations about progress with these boats. This issue affects many of my constituents not just in Weybridge, but across my constituency. I am sure that she will come on to this point. Given the nature of rivers, does she agree that a positive step forward would be working with me, my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) and the Minister to try to get a group together so that rather than pushing the boats on, we can tackle the issue once and for all?

[Monica Harding]

I thank the hon. Member, my constituency neighbour, for that point. I have no intention at all of pushing the boats down to his constituency: I want them gone. There can be nothing more powerful for our constituents than us working across parties in order to fix this problem.

The BBC picked up on this story this morning. The EA gave a statement to BBC Radio Surrey in which it claimed to be taking

“firm, lawful and proportionate action”.

That is manifestly not the case: the action is not firm or proportionate. It also said that the current situation highlights the need for a “more sustainable, systemic response” and pledged a “longer-term approach”. This is the same hot air that we have heard for years and years, waffling on about the need for long-term plans while the situation deteriorates.

All in all, this is a sad indictment of the poverty of ambition, application and competence in a body charged by taxpayers with protecting our waterways. Indeed, it is hard to overstate the disappointment of my constituents at the seeming inability of the Environment Agency to deliver results, even against objectives that it or the Secretary of State has set. This is the endless cycle: the most basic promises made to residents, the council or me are jettisoned after months of prevarication; the goals that remain are without measurement or accountability.

I worry from the Minister’s letter to me this afternoon that, regrettably, nothing will change, apart from her very kind ask of the Environment Agency to review its enforcement approach and her commitment to strengthening the EA’s approach. I am keen to hear how she intends to follow up on those points. I was deeply frustrated that much of the letter repeated what I, my residents and the council have being hearing from the EA for months and years: promises of new plans and more joined-up working, and recognition of past disappointments and the need for change. The Environment Agency says that it wants to regain the trust of my constituents. That trust is at rock bottom. What is needed now is far greater oversight—ministerial if necessary —and accountability against specific and deliverable goals.

I recently attended a public meeting with residents of Hurst Park and Molesey on a Friday night that was packed to the rafters with constituents deeply upset and justifiably angry with the situation. The essence of what people call broken Britain is the sense that the public realm is incapable of solving problems, even the most egregious and obvious ones—those that people and businesses see and feel every single day. The Prime Minister and members of the Government have spoken repeatedly about the need to rebuild trust in the state, rebuild its capacity, and show the people that systems can work and achieve things. Something that my residents and I have found particularly frustrating is the difficulty of attaching any accountability at all to anyone at any point, despite failure after failure. A failure to act deprives these people who I am privileged to represent—those who play by the rules and pay for public services—of the land, peace and natural beauty that they have always enjoyed.

I ask the Minister to give this matter her personal attention, and to work with me to solve it as a matter of priority. I would like her to work with me to show the people of Esher and Walton that good politics makes things better. Boats listed by the Environment Agency as wrecked or abandoned can, and should, be cleared immediately. Doing so quickly and forcefully, rather than piecemeal, removes one of the permanent risks of those boats—namely, that a change in river conditions could dislodge vessels and transform them into immediate hazards. Clearing overstayed boats requires taking legal steps, and it is vital that this work is consistently and properly resourced. Taking a start-and-stop approach is not an option, because many enforcement mechanisms unlocked by serving initial notices on boats must be completed within a certain period of time. Letting opportunities disappear sets everything back to square one.

The local police and the local council are ready and eager to help, and have put resources aside to do their part. As such, will the Minister commit personally to driving forward meaningful action on this issue through the Environment Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; to providing the necessary energy and resources; and to giving me a point of contact with officials in her department to co-ordinate our work? Will she also commit to meeting me, either in this place or in my constituency—where the problem can be seen and believed—to discuss the progress that we can make together? The problem of overstayed and sunken boats should not be intractable; everyone can see the problem, and the solution is obvious. It is time to show that collectively, we can deliver.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

Obviously, water is a devolved matter. I do not want to get into an issue for which power is devolved, or I would be instructing a Welsh Minister about what they should or should not be doing. I encourage the hon. Member to write back to the Welsh Minister, and maybe copy in the Secretary of State for Wales. That might be one way forward, rather than a Minister in this place being seen to tell a Minister in a different Government what they should or should not be doing. That would be stretching the confines of this debate, to which I will now return.

We have heard much this evening about the benefits that our rivers and canals bring to so many people in our constituencies—benefits that have been very eloquently articulated by hon. Members. We have heard about the Vikings, about Olympians and about how important waterways are to everyone in our areas. I was pleased to hear about the enforcement success in the autumn, but obviously disappointed to hear that progress has not been what it should have been. I will come on to that issue later.

Our inland waterways are an asset to our country. They are important to our national heritage and provide many public benefits—people live on them, enjoy being by them and use them for leisure and recreation, as well as their historical value. They form an important part of our natural environment by providing green corridors along which biodiversity can flourish, as well as contributing to the growth of local economies, such as through domestic tourism. We have heard quite a lot about that this evening.

The hon. Member for Esher and Walton has eloquently spoken of the beauty and tranquillity of the river in her constituency, and it is indeed one of our most majestic rivers as it winds its way along. Our navigation authorities have an important role to play into the future, and I pay tribute to them all as they maintain our waterways for the benefit of all users. I pay tribute to their staff, who deal with many varied situations on a daily basis, sometimes in difficult circumstances. Those authorities will help to ensure that a significant element of our nation’s key infrastructure is resilient to climate change, and they will help us to meet our net zero targets through sustainable transport and energy generation. They will also contribute to water security through flood mitigation measures and water transfers.

The hon. Member has spoken in detail about overstayed boats in Elmbridge and about boats that are illegally moored or derelict, abandoned or sunk. She has drawn particular attention to the adverse impacts that that is having on the use and enjoyment of the river by other waterway users, including those walking along the Thames path. I was concerned to hear accounts of antisocial behaviour and abuse directed at people trying to enjoy the riverways. She has also described her interactions with the Environment Agency as the navigation authority for the non-tidal River Thames and with other local authorities in the area in seeking to find a satisfactory resolution. I was pleased to hear the comments about the willingness of the local council and the police to work together on this issue.

I recognise the seriousness of the issues in Elmbridge and neighbouring constituencies, the understandable strength of feeling locally and the need for co-ordinated action to address them. I assure the hon. Member that the Environment Agency, which I have spoken to, also understands that and is looking to develop specific actions towards resolutions. I note the point she made about it having a deliverable plan and being seen to be taking action.

In fairness, let me mention the wider context in which the Environment Agency is working when it comes to enforcement. Any enforcement has to be within the law and careful and proportionate. It has discretionary landowner powers, not statutory duties, creating limitations for action on private land and where enforcement would cause disproportionate harm.

[Dr Ben Spencer]

I have had countless meetings with the EA linked with Elmbridge and in trying to deal with this problem, particularly in Desborough cut and Weybridge. Does the Minister think that the EA has sufficient powers in statute to be able to tackle this issue? She just mentioned discretionary powers. Do we need to change the law so that this can be dealt with once and for all?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. I am informed by the Environment Agency that it does have the powers, but I want to take that point away and question the EA about that. Is it a question of needing different powers, or are the powers there through the council and perhaps the police working together?

Avian Influenza

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Gentleman makes strong points. I think there is general awareness of, and concern about, what is going on. It is important to say to people that, if they have concerns and they see such things, they should report them. On our work with the devolved Administrations, we have a very strong structure that allows all the devolved Administrations to be involved so that we have a consistent framework.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

Again, we rely on the facilities at the Animal and Plant Health Agency, based in New Haw in my constituency, and we thank it for its work. A few weeks ago, I asked the Minister if he would visit the site with me to see for himself the work that needs to be done and the urgent need for massive investment in the site. Do we have to wait until the next urgent question or statement before he will take me up on my offer?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his invitation. I have had numerous invitations. Last week, I was in Northumberland looking at rural crime, and this week I was at the Fenland SOIL—sustainability, opportunity, innovation, learning—conference. I will add the hon. Gentleman’s invitation to my list.

Foot and Mouth Disease

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank my hon. Friend for her point and her concern. We have an extensive set of facilities and agencies who are tasked with protecting our country on these issues. I have every confidence in the chief veterinary officer and her officials in the APHA, subject to the issues that have been raised around long-term funding. We have good protections in place and people should have confidence in them.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

Yet again, we rely on the fantastic people at the Animal and Plant Health Agency, which is based in New Haw in my constituency, despite its slightly confusing name. Will the Minister join me in thanking the people who work there, and does he agree that it urgently needs investment to improve the facilities? I do not think he has visited the APHA. Will he join me on a tour as soon as we can arrange it to see for himself the state it is in and what improvements are urgently needed?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am always grateful for invitations from hon. Members and feel that I am permanently on tour, but the hon. Gentleman is right that I have not yet had the opportunity to visit, although the Secretary of State has. Last week, when I was at a conference in York, very senior officials from the APHA gave me a very detailed briefing on the work they do. I share in the thanks to those people who play a huge role in keeping our country safe.

Storm Bert

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I had the pleasure of visiting the aquadrome, and I am very sad indeed to hear that it has been flooded yet again. My hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that it is not just about increasing funding, important though that is; it is also about getting the agencies on the ground to co-ordinate better at national, regional and very local levels.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

We have a flood alert in Runnymede and Weybridge at the moment, but it takes a few days for the water to make its way down to us, so we do not know the full impact of Storm Bert. We hope that there will not be a repeat of what happened with Storm Henk earlier this year, when constituents were passed from pillar to post due to the myriad statutory responders during a flood emergency. What will the floods resilience taskforce do to fix that, and will the Secretary of State support my campaign for an individual point of contact and co-ordination? We need a flood control centre in Runnymede and Weybridge, and in all our constituencies, to support our residents in a flood emergency.

[Steve Reed]

The role of the floods resilience taskforce is to ensure not just that there is better co-ordination at national level and between national and local agencies, but that co-ordination happens far better at the local level in the way that he is describing and that there is much better communication with residents, so that they know who to contact, and can do so in a much simpler way, to get the support and help that they need both when floods are coming and as areas recover from the impacts of flooding.

Independent Water Commission

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The many campaign groups and citizen scientists have had a huge impact on raising the profile of the sewage scandal affecting our country and in pointing to some of the ways in which we can start to fix things. Sir Jon’s commission will have an advisory group with representation from campaign groups and consumers. There will also be wide engagement with the public, both through the work of the commission itself and subsequently, as we work towards the reform legislation that will reset the sector once and for all.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

In the absence of a plan, it is always a good idea to do a review. My constituents are being failed by our local sewage infrastructure—Thames Water is a total and utter disgrace. However, I really welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, because I think I have found an unlikely ally. The Labour Government will force through building on the green belt in my constituency, with a whole host of new houses—a situation exacerbated by the failure of the Liberal Democrat administration in Elmbridge to deliver a local plan. Given the time it will take the commission to report back, and given that these new houses will require more sewerage, does the Secretary of State agree that we should pause and think again about the house building targets until the review has been completed?

[Steve Reed]

I thought the hon. Gentleman was standing up to apologise for the fact that the Conservative Government did absolutely nothing for 14 years, other than watch the torrent of effluent going into our rivers, lakes and seas increase and pollute them. My hon. Friend the Water Minister would be more than happy to meet him to discuss the issues that he raises in his constituency.

Planning, the Green Belt and Rural Affairs

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Friday 19th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

My constituency has vast swathes of high-risk flood area—zones 2 and 3—and we see flooding every year; we saw it most notably in 2014, but also in January. Will the right hon. Lady’s planning reforms protect areas at high risk of flooding, so that they are not built on, making our flooding worse?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

Order. We have a lot of speakers to get through, including some maiden speakers, so I urge Front Benchers to make shorter speeches and take fewer interventions. Otherwise, we are not going to get through these maiden speakers.

Water Quality: Sewage Discharge

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I think we can all agree that sewage flooding is revolting. Few people know this better than my constituents in Thorpe, who have already experienced it twice this year in their gardens and homes, yet what Labour and the Lib Dems fail to mention is that if we were to simply click our fingers and ban sewage overflows into rivers, the result would be many more households experiencing sewage flooding as it backed up into their homes at times of flooding or heavy rainfall.

No one wants sewage overflowing into our rivers, either, and it is clear that there has been a lack of investment in sewage infrastructure over decades, which has led to this situation. However, rather than knee-jerk reactions and uncosted plans aimed at political campaigning and PR, we believe in working towards long-term solutions to protect our rivers. That is why we passed the Environment Act 2021, which introduced new targets and measures to require water companies to take action. It is why we are legislating to enshrine those targets in law, ensuring that they are deliverable and cost-effective for bill payers.

That belief is why I work closely with Thames Water and the Environment Agency to address flooding and water quality issues in Runnymede and Weybridge. It is why I press for infrastructure investment to prioritise high-use areas such as mine, so that we can deliver improvements for the maximum number of people as soon as possible. It is why I visited local sewage treatment works and pressed for modernisation that would reduce local sewage overflows, and it is why I support the £500 million—of which £250 million is coming from the Government and £250 million is coming from Surrey County Council—going towards the River Thames scheme, which will protect thousands of homes and businesses locally from flooding. It is why I will continue to campaign for practical, affordable solutions based on the needs and experiences of residents in Runnymede and Weybridge.

Opposition proposals during the passage of the Environment Act would have cost between £150 billion and £600 billion, and even then, achieving the improvements that were being promised might have proven impossible. Do Opposition Members really believe that headlines today are worth thousands of pounds in household bills each year? Do they really want to stop overflows and instead flood people’s homes, or will they finally put sound financial planning, sustainability and affordability above spin, and support our plans to improve water quality without the awful consequences for residents that their plans would cause?