Thames Water

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I agree. The whole mess we inherited was due to the previous Government letting the water companies get away with it; people were paying themselves multimillion-pound bonuses as they profited from pollution. That ended when the Conservative Government were defeated. We are putting the water companies under tough special measures and we will focus them on serving their customers and the environment, not themselves.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State think that the situation might improve if Thames Water executives were obliged to sign up to performance-related pay?

[Steve Reed]

That is a very interesting proposal. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will suggest it to Sir Jon Cunliffe, who is currently looking at a better way to regulate.

Trail Hunting

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. His thesis seems to be that, because the direct hunting of foxes was made illegal, trail hunting is being us as a cover for it. What would happen if he had his way and trail hunting was banned as well? Would it not then be possible for drag hunting to be used in some way as a cover for illegal fox hunting? If so, is not this an endless process, and should he not come out and say straightaway that he wants every form of this activity stopped?

[Perran Moon]

I think that I have twice made the point that I have no issue with drag hunting. With drag hunting, the scent that is followed is not that of the carcase of an animal or the urine of an animal. Therefore, the likelihood that there will be wild animals included in drag hunting is much, much smaller. The evidence from the RSPCA and the League Against Cruel Sports supports the view that drag hunting is completely different from trail hunting, and that there is no issue with drag hunting. It is really important that this is not seen to be a witch hunt against people who want to have a hack across the countryside with dogs on a specific and pre-planned route. It is a really important nuance within rural communities that we are not against all forms of horse riding. We want to make sure that wildlife and the natural environment are protected, so, respectfully, I do not agree with the right hon. Member.

In fact, the League Against Cruel Sports’ own analysis reveals that trail hunting has been used as a defence in cases involving alleged illegal hunting by registered hunts. That highlights the major issues with the current legislation, as the existing law is often unable sufficiently to hold to account those who flout the regulations under the guise of trail hunting.

Moreover, enforcement in the field has proven difficult. Although hunts are operating illegally, knowingly or intentionally hunting live quarry, it can often be challenging to prove that in court. The impact on animal welfare is significant, with wild animals, particularly foxes, being forced to run long distances while being relentlessly pursued, after which they are torn limb from limb while still alive by a pack of uncontrollable hounds. The suffering does not stop there. Non-target animals, including domestic pets and livestock, have also been disturbed, attacked and even killed when hunts veer off course, creating havoc in residential areas and rural communities.

This issue is not a matter for one party alone. Support for banning trail hunting crosses party lines. MPs from various political parties, including the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats and the Green party, have all expressed concern over trail hunting’s role in perpetuating illegal hunting activities. This broad cross-party support demonstrates a shared commitment to protecting animals, wildlife and the natural environment. I strongly believe it is time for us to come together and close this loophole once and for all.

Public opinion on hunting in the UK has shifted dramatically over the years. Around 80% of the British public support the ban on hunting with dogs, and many of those people would like to see trail hunting banned as well. The moral case for ending trail hunting is clear: it is inconsistent with the values of a modern, compassionate society that respects animal welfare. Hunting, whether through traditional or trail methods, often takes place in areas of natural beauty and fragile ecosystems. The disturbance caused by hounds and hunters can have lasting effects on the local wildlife, disrupt natural habitats, and lead to long-term ecological damage. Given the increasing concern over biodiversity and the need to protect our natural environment, banning trail hunting would be a positive step in safeguarding the UK’s wildlife and habitats.

We need to strengthen the Hunting Act 2004 to make sure it delivers the protection that animals need. That means banning trail hunting, removing exemptions that enable illegal hunting and introducing custodial sentences for those who break the law.

Sustainable Farming Incentive

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Lady raises an important set of points. We now have 75,000 km of hedgerow within these schemes. The basic point is that we have a fixed budget and, just as with the capital grants, when they are spent, they are spent. Another set of grants will be available, and I invite her constituents to apply at that point. We cannot get away from the fact that there is not an endless supply of money. We have to work within the budgets.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I understand the Minister’s point that it has been known all along that at some point the fixed budget would be exhausted. A simple question for him: on which day were Ministers first informed that that budget had been exhausted?

[Daniel Zeichner]

We made the decision yesterday because we reached that point.

Rural Affairs

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I will give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), and then I will make some progress.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is very kind, and she is making a masterly exposition of how to deconstruct this case. Did she notice, exactly a week ago, when we had an urgent question on the subject, the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs was asked how food security could be valued if the result of the Budget measures would be that farmland would be split up and sold off, probably for development. His answer said, in part:

“Of course there are trade-offs. There are a range of pressures on our land, in respect of housing, food, energy and so many other things.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2024; Vol. 756, c. 37.]

So he seemed to be accepting that land will be sold off and it will be built upon.

[Victoria Atkins]

Of course, the Government’s permissions for solar and wind industrial units on prime agricultural land will only add to those pressures as well.

Budget: Implications for Farming Communities

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Member asks what we did. What we did was look at the farming budget and ensure that we protected it, to allow his constituents and constituents across the country to take part in the schemes that will support them in that important transition.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

How does the Minister reconcile his sensible acceptance of the fact that food security is vital to national security with farmland being split up and sold off, probably for development, as a result of the Budget changes?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The right hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. We will be addressing it through the land use framework, which will be delivered in the next couple of months. Of course there are trade-offs. There are a range of pressures on our land, in respect of housing, food, energy and so many other things. We need to have a rational way of making those decisions, and that is exactly what we will introduce.

Protecting and Restoring Wetlands

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Siobhan Baillie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I would very much like to visit to see his brent geese at some stage. Because it is so important for conservation and awareness, I encourage all Members to go and get their social media clips with their wetlands and wildfowl.

The convention on wetlands, also known as the Ramsar convention, is a crucial international treaty aimed at conserving and promoting the sustainable use of wetlands. The oldest global intergovernmental environmental agreement in the world, it set the standards for international co-operation on environmental action that other, more high-profile international agreements have followed. I am proud to say that the UK Government were an early signatory to the convention back in the ’70s, underlining our commitment to the preservation of these valuable ecosystems. The WWT plays a significant role as one of the six international organisational partners involved in the convention’s implementation. Various stakeholders, including environmental non-governmental organisations, contribute to this collaborative effort, showing the importance of partnerships in safeguarding our wetlands.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, both for initiating this debate and for kindly letting me say a word about the Freshwater Habitats Trust, whose New Forest representative, Thea Margetts, I met at the volunteer fair put on by the national park authority last weekend. It is amazing what these volunteers contribute, not least the New Forest water code and other great pointers and advice as to how we can keep these precious but delicate environments safe.

[Siobhan Baillie]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that important intervention, which brings alive the number of freshwater volunteers and shows just how many people are gripped by this environmental work, really taking it into their hearts and running with it. I would say that the wetlands squad is true squad goals! They really do work together and with a range of different people across this country and around the world.

Ramsar sites—protected wetlands of international importance—are some of the UK’s most precious natural treasures. With 175 Ramsar sites, the UK has more than anywhere else in the world. These sites are the equivalent of the white cliffs of Dover or Stonehenge in their significance to the cultural identity of our nation—a country renowned for its wet weather.

Groceries Supply Code of Practice

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Christina Rees]

I agree completely with the points made by my hon. Friend.

The first significant issue to explore is that of intermediaries within the food supply chain. The code has brought many positives, including the removal of back-door illegal practices. Although the code has overseen improved practices, it does not cover the relationships that intermediaries have with either farmers or retailers. Its explicit purpose is to regulate supermarket behaviour to bring value and choice for consumers; it is not, and was never, about producers. The use of intermediaries has the potential to allow retailers to circumvent the code.

When I was preparing for the debate, I heard directly from farmers and about how such practices create problems for them. They rarely have a written contract, so a request for 100,000 lettuces during the first week of September could turn into a downgrade to 70,000 lettuces if the sun suddenly disappears and salads become less favoured than soups. That leaves the farmer with 30,000 unpurchased lettuces and a considerable threat to their business. There are perfectly sensible reasons for intermediaries to exist—in particular in the meat supply chain, where a farmer would not sell a whole carcase to a single retailer, and therefore a processor or intermediary sells different parts to different customers—but the potential for unfair and unsustainable practice is significantly increased without regulation.

A second issue to consider is pricing. Much of the criticism of the code centres on the fact that it does not cover pricing in the food sector, and the issue is exacerbated by the frequent misconception that it does. However, pricing was never covered by the code and the legislation does not allow for its regulation. Coercion by retailers has also had an impact as the cost of a product is squeezed beyond break-even as retailers put pressure on farmers to reduce their prices to allow them to factor in costs such as packaging, marketing and overheads. Instances of such practices have declined, but still pose a problem in achieving a fair price.

We must also look into the imbalance of power and risk. Pricing can illustrate the problem of unequal power and risk within the food supply chain. In 2008, the Competition Commission inquiry found that grocery retailers were transferring excessive risks and unexpected costs to their suppliers. Furthermore, examples such as the one I mentioned previously—when the size of a produce order is suddenly scaled back—illustrate the inequitable distribution of risk, with the grower shouldering most of the burden while the retailer can quickly adapt an order according to market forces without the same risk.

The response to that was the creation of the code and enforcement by the GCA. Several mandatory reviews by Government, as well as supplier surveys, have shown significant improvements in supplier-retailer relations during the past decade or so. Despite that fact, fear remains in the industry. Many call on the GCA to make greater use of its powers to issue fines.

Some suggest that the GCA is hugely under-resourced. It is widely recognised that the cost of a single investigation is greater than its entire annual budget. The result is a perception that the GCA is toothless. The GCA’s opinion is that it is effective within the current parameters of the law, and it is not for it to say whether those parameters should be expanded. However, it is acknowledged that additional funding and powers would be needed to expand the remit of the GCA. The most common criticism of the code and the GCA is that they do not cover the whole supply chain, which means that they apply only to direct suppliers of the 14 biggest retailers, including Tesco, Morrisons, Sainsbury’s and Aldi. That leaves indirect suppliers unprotected, including many small farmers and primary producers. The Competition Commission predicted that problem back in 2008 and suggested two responses: to extend the code and the GCA to cover indirect suppliers or to introduce complementary codes to cover intermediaries and primary producers. Both options, though, ignore the issue of how such codes and regulators are funded so, finally, we must explore the issue of a regulator being both adjudicator and arbitrator.

The GCA is funded via a levy on 14 retailers. This is not uncommon for sector regulators, which are almost always funded via the organisations they oversee. However, that can leave them open to criticism of unfair practice and of not being hard enough on retailers. Although collaboration and arbitration are often useful ways of working, it can be argued that such circumstances pose a challenge if a situation requires the regulator to become an adjudicator and enforce fines. The GCA’s opinion is that the code is flexible enough to deal with a range of issues, including online sales, and that amending it might make it too rigid. When farmers are direct suppliers, the three issues raised by the petitioners are clearly covered and regulated.

What reforms are needed? It can be argued that the criticism levied at the code and the GCA is somewhat unfair as most issues, such as pricing and intermediaries, are simply not covered by the existing legislation and procedures. However, that does not preclude the fact that the issues exist and need to be dealt with. To that end, several reforms have been suggested and need exploring, including expanding the number of retailers covered by the code by lowering the threshold for compliance from £1 billion in turnover to £500 million, preventing retailers circumventing the code by purchasing through intermediaries, increasing the powers and remit of the GCA to cover issues such as pricing and processes, and setting up separate regulators with separate obligations.

The groceries supply code of practice is a vital tool that can either support or hinder the wellbeing of our farmers. It is our responsibility to advocate for reforms that ensure fairness, transparency and sustainability in the supply chain.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Like many other Members here, I was not aware of this issue until several constituents contacted me. Does the hon. Lady know whether there is any mechanism whereby small farmers and other suppliers can report it to the regulator when they are put in this difficult situation as a result of promises to make purchases not being kept? I do not see how the regulator can regulate if they do not have adequate information about where suppliers are being let down.

[Christina Rees]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Applications are made to the adjudicator, but there is a certain amount of confidentiality involved, and sometimes the farmers reporting want to remain anonymous, so some reporting is done behind the scenes. However, I thank him so much for his intervention; as always, he makes a very valuable point, and it would be interesting to hear what the Minister says about it.

By advocating for reform, we not only support our farmers but contribute to building a more resilient, ethical and sustainable food system for generations to come. Furthermore, a reformed code should prioritise sustainability and ethical practices. Our farmers are not only responsible for feeding the population but for stewarding our environment. It is imperative that the code encourages and rewards environmentally friendly and sustainable farming practices, which could include provisions for fair compensation for using sustainable farming methods, and penalties for practices that harm the environment.

Additionally, the reforms should incorporate measures to address the issue of market access. Farmers, particularly small and local producers, often face barriers that limit their ability to access a diverse range of markets. The groceries supply code of practice can be reformed to encourage retailers to seek out and support local farmers, fostering a more diverse and resilient agricultural system.

In conclusion, although the groceries supply code of practice was established with good intentions, it requires significant reform to provide better support for those who toil tirelessly to bring food to our tables. It is imperative that we acknowledge the challenges faced by our farmers and work towards creating a more equitable and supportive system. We must reform the code to ensure a fair distribution of power and risk in the supply chain. This could be achieved through the establishment of a transparent and accountable framework, possibly involving a new regulator, separate from the GCA, that promotes fair pricing, timely payments and equitable contractual relationships. By empowering farmers with the tools that they need to negotiate fairly, we can foster a more balanced and sustainable agricultural sector. Let us stand together in solidarity with our farmers and work towards a future in which their invaluable contributions are acknowledged, respected and fairly compensated.

While I was preparing for this debate, I met the petitioners and many stakeholders, and I would be pleased if the Minister could explain his Government’s position on the code and give his opinions regarding the issues I have raised. I also invite him to meet me and the petitioners, so that we can explore these issues in greater depth.

Legislation on Dangerous Dogs

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I came to the debate to find out more about the issue and to give voice to my constituent Helen. She is caught by what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) described as the imprecision of the rules on what actually constitutes a dog of this dangerous categorisation. The Minister is as kindly, compassionate and open to reason as any former Chief Government Whip could be, so I presume on the time of the Chamber only to quote a few extracts from a quite convincing letter from my constituent.

Of course, dangerous dogs legislation has a bit of a history. I was not yet a Member of Parliament when the original legislation was passed. However, I think I am correct that it became a bit of a byword for legislation introduced in a hurry on an issue that turned out to be rather more complex than initially seemed to be the case, and I fear that the same may be true of the present update to the Act. It is therefore with reluctance that I say that we of course all agree that the safety of human beings must come first, but if we propose to inflict severe restrictions on pet owners, we must at least be unambiguous in what we do.

Let me turn to what Helen wrote to me:

“I do not have an ‘XL bully’. My dog is, by DNA testing, an American Bulldog X Neapolitan Mastiff mix, with multiple breeds mixed on the mastiff side. In other words, I have your basic mutt, or ‘Heinz 57’ dog. He will be 11 in April and I have had him since he was 9 weeks old. He has never shown an ounce of aggression towards any humans, including at the vets during some incredibly negative procedures, none of which the vets have ever felt he needed to be muzzled for, including when he had to have a stent placed into his ear when he damaged a blood vessel”—

a procedure she says he had done, “without pain relief!” She continues:

“So you can imagine my shock, my horror, at learning that the ridiculously vague ‘breed definition’ of the XL bully, very hastily and incredibly poorly formed by the Government ‘experts’, somehow seems to have incorporated every and any large muscular looking dog in the UK, potentially including my beloved boy.”

She says that according to the EFRA Committee discussion, the XL bully came to the UK in 2014, but her dog was born the year before, so she finds it hard to believe that he could so be categorised. She says:

“With such vague descriptors as ‘gives the impression of great power for size’, ‘blocky head’ and ‘neck is medium in length’, and the equally vague descriptor that the dog must meet ‘a substantial number of the characteristics’, I have no idea if he would fit ‘type’, and seemingly all that matters is what everybody else thinks!”

She then goes on to say, “Of course, you could recommend my taking a ‘precautionary approach’” and register him anyway, because it would just mean that he would have to be on a lead and muzzled in order to comply. However, apart from this costing her dog its freedom, which she feels is wholly undeserved, she says there is much more in the way of consequences than might be expected.

For example, she says that the health insurance, which she has had for the dog ever since she brought him home, would be lost to her. Without health insurance, it would have cost her more than £3,500 for a procedure that her dog had to undergo, but it actually cost her £800 with the insurance. She says that in the midst of a cost of living crisis, she now has to decide whether to register her dog as an XL bully when she does not believe that he is one at all,

“completely and pointlessly removing his freedom and drastically restricting his life, plus lose the financial backing that I have had his entire life just at the time when he will need it most…or I don’t register him as I don’t believe he is one and wait to see if someone else disagrees, reports me, and I wind up having him forcibly seized, taken away (at a point when I don’t know how much longer he has left with me) and, to top it off, become a criminal, when, as a middle-class, middle manager who has never been out of work I’ve had nothing more than a speeding ticket in my whole life.”

In this individual case, Helen is saying—very much in concert with many of the contributions we have heard so far—that this is a blanket approach insufficiently focused on the actual circumstances under which people should be deprived of their dogs. I agree that we need legislation, and that human life must come first, but I do not agree that the statutory instrument, as it stands, cannot be improved. I am therefore, not for the first time, throwing myself on the mercy of this particular Minister; I look to him to give us, when he comes to wind up, an undertaking that the Government, rather than rushing ahead in a blinkered way, will have another look at the formulation that they have come up with to see whether people like Helen, who by no stretch of the imagination pose a danger to the public with their beloved pets, cannot be excluded from a blunderbuss approach, when a rapier is the weapon we ought to employ in dealing with a very real problem.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Canterbury!

[Michael Fabricant]

No, Lichfield. We want him in Lichfield and then the hard work done by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York could be shared. We have that precedent; we want you now.

Ivory Bill

Julian Lewis Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons
Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady makes an important point: the bravery and determination of those who do this work is outstanding. In countries such as Gabon individuals risk their lives to save elephants and safeguard the animals they love in a country to which they are deeply attached, and as it goes in Gabon it goes in many others countries as well.

The hon. Lady’s intervention also gives me an opportunity to thank our own armed services. As the Defence Secretary pointed out, only last week we dispatched more trained military personnel to support the work of rangers on the ground. That capacity of a country like ours to work together and use our expertise alongside the commitment of those from African nations will help us turn the tide and beat back the poachers.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

With that, I am more than happy to give way to my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Among the tens of thousands of people who responded to the consultation were my constituents, Susie Laan and Louise Ravula, who are part of a small but effective organisation called Two Million Tusks, representing the million elephants slaughtered in the past 100 years. They did some original research that showed that, in 72 auction houses covering 180 lots of ivory, 90% of the sales of those lots were unable to prove the provenance—in other words, the dating to pre-1947—of the ivory, which is a legal requirement for the sale of ivory at the moment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that research proves that we need a pretty comprehensive ban if we cannot tell the date of the product being sold?

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend makes the next important point in the chain of argument for legislation. Yes, we have restrictions at the moment, but they do not work. The existence of the current legal market allows illegally obtained ivory to pass as legally acceptable ivory or worked ivory for sale. In effect, that means that criminal organisations and those who are driven by the significant profits to be made by selling ivory into markets where there is a demand can use the weakness of the existing provision to pass illegal material off as legal. That is why we need to act.

The need to act, to be more precise and to change the burden of expectation is critical in the minds of all those who responded to the consultation and of those African and other leaders who are pressing action on us. They want to ensure that we take steps to communicate to the world that ivory should not be sold, trafficked or displayed in a way that encourages anyone to think that African elephant ivory is a good of ostentation that someone could derive pleasure from demonstrating their wealth by acquiring. The whole point about the trade in elephant tusks is that it is abhorrent and involves unspeakable cruelty, and every possible step needs to be taken to stop it.