Antisocial Behaviour on Canals and Rivers: Bath

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Our waterways in Bath are the envy of the country. Across England and Wales, more than 30,000 boats are licensed to navigate our canals and rivers, and Bath stands out as a particular hotspot. Many boaters choose to make Bath their home, whether moored permanently or passing through as part of a longer journey. The Kennet and Avon canal flows gracefully through our world heritage city, shaping our landscape and connecting our community through nature. We value every one of our boaters in Bath, especially our live-aboard boating communities, many of whom work locally, raise families and care deeply about the waterways.

Riverside businesses contribute so much to our local economy, and they create welcoming spaces enjoyed by people across the city. We have a shared responsibility to keep these places safe, clean and accessible to everyone. Rising rents, a lack of social housing and the increased cost of living mean that living on the water is a more affordable option for many. There are more boats on our canals than during the peak of the industrial revolution, with a quarter of those estimated to be live-aboard residential vessels. A study by Promarine Finance found that three quarters of live-aboard owners have never owned a home, with 90% of them citing the cost of living as a factor.

In Bath, boaters and residents of houses along our waterways have co-existed peacefully for decades as neighbours and friends, but it is not just residents who make use of our canals and waterways. People from all over Bath and beyond come to see the beautiful scenery and nature that the canal provides. The towpath also serves as an important active travel route for walkers and cyclists. These areas must be protected for boaters, local residents and visitors alike.

That brings me to the purpose of this debate. In recent years, residents along the Kennet and Avon canal have experienced persistent and at times dangerous antisocial behaviour on the part of a small minority of individuals. Our canals are residential areas, but all too often families and individuals have been subjected to loud music late into the night, bonfires, and acts of vandalism that make it impossible for them to enjoy their homes in peace.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady mentions vandalism. I have tabled a private Member’s Bill on water safety, which covers a range of issues, in memory of a young lad who lived in Yorkshire and who passed away from drowning in a reservoir. I promised, in the name of Sam, that I would do something about vandalism by making it a named criminal offence for anyone to vandalise water safety equipment. The risk, in terms of the penalty, would be much higher, and would therefore prevent such vandalism from taking place. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is something we should fight to do, in honour of Sam and for his dad, Simon Haycock?

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse]

Let me first express my condolences to the family of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent who drowned so tragically. Such tragedies demonstrate that antisocial behaviour often constitutes thoughtless vandalism. People do not understand what they are doing. We need to make people think about what they do, and legislation may be necessary to enforce that. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue as a particular concern, and I will of course welcome and support his Bill. Good luck to it.

Constituents have written to me with deeply worrying accounts of drug and alcohol misuse, public urination, and towpaths obstructed by furniture and dumped rubbish. That can also be a massive hazard. As I have just said, people often do not think when they do these things, so unfortunately we sometimes have to use the law to encourage the right behaviour. No resident or visitor to Bath should ever feel unsafe on our canals, and the behaviour that I have described is completely unacceptable. Even more troubling are reports of human waste being emptied directly into the canal, black bags of excrement left beside towpaths, and diesel and oil spills polluting the water. There are also serious concerns about boats remaining in short-stay mooring zones for months— sometimes for over a year—alongside abandoned vessels blocking locks and essential services, and preventing hire boats from being navigated safely. All those problems are caused by people being thoughtless, so it is important for the right measures to be in place to keep people safe.

My constituents—and, I am sure, many others throughout the country—are rightly frustrated by the ongoing failure to enforce rules governing our canals. These problems are well known, but no one seems to be able to fix them. A key reason for that is the fragmented enforcement landscape. The Canal & River Trust is responsible for managing most of the canals in England and Wales. Its remit covers everything from boat licensing and mooring rules to obstruction and navigation, but it is attempting to enforce its statutory responsibilities within a framework that is fundamentally flawed. It was established as a charity in 2012 to take over from British Waterways, the statutory body that had previously managed our canal network. While the trust would still receive a Government grant, the idea was that any shortfalls would be made up by its various commercial ventures, much the same arrangement that applies to the National Trust. However, the Canal & River Trust and the National Trust are very different. The latter has commercial properties, thousands of paying members and huge tourism revenues, while the former has a property portfolio that is costly to maintain, and only a small amount of income from the rents paid by boaters. No other charity has as its primary responsibility the upkeep of so much critical infrastructure. As a result, we now have a charity tasked with enforcement powers but without the legal clarity or the practical capacity to use them effectively.

However, resources alone are not the core issue. I have met representatives of the Canal & River Trust on numerous occasions, including a candid discussion about these issues just a few days ago. They are clear that the principal barrier they face is the outdated legal framework governing our waterways. The British Waterways Act 1995 provides only limited powers; crucially, it fails to give the trust the powers it needs to manage boats effectively and fairly. Take the rule governing boats without a permanent mooring: the law states that such boats must not remain

“continuously in any one place for more than 14 days”,

yet it offers no definition of what “one place” means or of how far a boat must move to comply. It is left to the Canal & River Trust to interpret the legislation, leading to regular disputes that take up valuable time and resources. I urge the Minister to take this issue back to her Department, and to engage with the Canal & River Trust on improving that part of the legislation.

The trust’s powers to deal with unlicensed boats are also severely limited. Even where powers exist, enforcement can take two or three years, or longer if challenged, rendering them largely ineffective. It is currently very difficult to remove abandoned boats. First, the Canal & River Trust must establish whom the boat belongs to. Even then, removal can cost around £8,000 per boat—money that the trust often does not get back. Safeguards must remain in place, particularly for the people who live on these boats—boaters should have the right to contest any decision of this nature—but our waterways are shared public assets. Residents and responsible boaters alike are rightly frustrated at having to wait years for action to be taken against persistent antisocial behaviour or unlicensed vessels.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

[Wera Hobhouse]

Of course.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Before the hon. Lady takes the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, let me say that I am looking forward to hearing his knowledge of the canals and rivers in Bath.

[Jim Shannon]

I spoke to the hon. Lady before the debate, and I explained why it is so important that I support her. In the middle of Newtownards, my major town, we have a massive canal—it has been there since the year 1—so I understand some of the things that the hon. Lady refers to. I asked her about antisocial behaviour, which is what I want to focus on. In Newtownards, the canal has long been a focus of antisocial behaviour, particularly as the local park is right beside it. Does she agree that although it is wonderful that our local team of street pastors actively address the issue of antisocial behaviour, it is about partnership? The partnership between street pastors, the police and communities helps to address antisocial behaviour. I always try to be helpful in any debate.

[Wera Hobhouse]

The hon. Gentleman did talk to me before the debate, and I was happy to take his intervention. Bath is an example of the challenges that exist everywhere. We are here to discuss those, but also to point to the partnerships that are essential if we are to resolve the issues, so I thank him for his contribution. Yes, we need to work in partnerships.

The Canal & River Trust stands ready to act, but it needs clearer and stronger legal powers to do so. Perhaps the most baffling thing of all is that the trust has no powers to issue fines or even to refuse a licence. The solution is straightforward: the law should be strengthened to clarify exactly what is required of boaters and to equip the trust with proportionate, enforceable powers, balanced by appropriate safeguards to ensure that those powers are used fairly.

The Canal & River Trust is very keen to engage constructively with all parties on this issue, particularly in hotspots such as Bath, but another major obstacle is the range of stakeholders involved. While the Canal & River Trust manages day-to-day canal operations, the Environment Agency is responsible for pollution and environmental protection, local authorities oversee byelaws relating to littering and antisocial behaviour, and the police retain responsibility for criminal offences. It is easy to see how issues such as dumping, vandalism and the burning of inappropriate fuels fall between those overlapping remits. As the saying goes, when everyone is responsible, no one is responsible, which is why all too often these issues remain unresolved.

Matters are further complicated by restrictive interpretations of the GDPR, which restricts information sharing between agencies. Each body recognises the problem, but none can resolve it alone. I intend to bring together the Canal & River Trust, the police, the Environment Agency and the local authority to improve local co-ordination and enforcement, but let me make it clear that, although better collaboration is essential, this alone is not enough. To genuinely improve enforcement on our waterways—and I echo the calls of the Canal & River Trust in this regard—we must see meaningful reform of the law.

To conclude, Bath is certainly a hotspot for boaters, but this is a nationwide problem. “The Future of Licensing” report, published in October 2025, highlights insufficient powers, chronic under-resourcing and unsustainable enforcement arrangements as just some of the issues facing the Canal & River Trust. My constituents are tired of waiting for action. They want clear accountability for antisocial behaviour on our waterways, proper funding for enforcement services, faster and proportionate powers where behaviour is dangerous or polluting, and better multi-agency co-ordination between the Canal & River Trust, councils, police and the Environment Agency. If we are serious about fixing this, we must give those responsible the clear authority and resources they need—the authority to regulate, enforce and act—so that our canals and rivers are not sources of frustration and conflict, but safe and well-managed spaces that work for residents, boaters and the wider community alike.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this evening, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on securing the debate and thank her for raising this important issue. I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his insightful intervention about the canals in Northern Ireland.

May I, through my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), send my sympathies to the parents of the little boy who died in Doncaster? His tragic story is a reminder that a senseless act of vandalism, or what looks and feels like fun in the moment, can have absolutely devastating consequences. It is also a reminder of the need for those responsible for reservoirs and towpaths to have in place a regime that makes sure the safety equipment is always there and properly maintained.

I share the concerns of hon. Members and the public about these serious matters. We have heard about significant nuisance to local people and communities that can also involve damage to property, physical threats and even assault. As the hon. Member for Bath said, the cost of living crisis is at the heart of this, because people have been priced out of houses in the gorgeous city of Bath, where there are many second homeowners and Airbnbs. I enjoyed a weekend there with my husband to celebrate our wedding anniversary, and it is lovely—we can feel that it is a very special place—but it may be very hard for people to afford local housing in her city.

The Government are committed to tackling this type of antisocial behaviour. We are proposing a range of measures in the Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently in Committee in the other place. Those new powers include a new respect order to ban adult offenders from engaging in specified activities, and increasing the maximum fixed penalty for breaches of a public spaces protection order or a community protection notice, from £100 to £500.

As the hon. Member said, and as I know from cycling up and down canal towpaths—slowly, and always dinging my bell twice when behind pedestrians—people living on the waterways are a deterrent against the types of antisocial behaviour that the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned. The natural surveillance of the people living on the boats means there is a huge disincentive to engage in criminal behaviour close to them.

As the hon. Member for Bath said, the Canal & River Trust is the responsible authority for the Kennet and Avon canal and the River Avon in Bath. It is aware of the problems and the concerns raised locally. It does not have policing powers, but it is responsible for the safe management both of its land and of waterways. It has policies governing unacceptable behaviour and site management, and those set out the expected conduct and outline when the trust can intervene or escalate issues.

[Wera Hobhouse]

The Minister has mentioned before that more powers will be given to the police, but often the main problem is that the police say, “We don’t have the resources to police the canal all the time,” while ultimately it is the Canal & River Trust that looks after canals, rivers and towpaths. There must be more that the Canal & River Trust can do about antisocial behaviour.

[Mary Creagh]

If the hon. Lady were to convene a regular set of meetings—say, quarterly—on this with the police, the local council and the CRT, I have found that the steady drumbeat of local accountability is very effective in bringing these partners together to tackle these issues, alongside the community of users and canal dwellers.

Animal Welfare Strategy

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

I reassure my hon. Friend that we are looking at this issue, and there will be further details in the strategy.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. May I thank you for signing the Christmas card of my young constituent, who was the winner of our Christmas card competition? When I gave it back to her, she was thrilled.

I had the pleasure of visiting the Lush store in Bath. Lush has been a leading advocate for ending animal testing, championing cruelty-free science and cosmetics, and investing in innovative and humane alternatives. The Secretary of State has partly answered the question on the “Replacing animals in science” strategy, but of course it will be closely linked to the animal welfare strategy. Will she commit to any strategy that is published being backed up by primary legislation, with legally binding targets and timelines for ending animal testing and cruelty?

[Emma Reynolds]

As I said in response to a previous question, this is a DSIT lead, not a DEFRA lead. We do work closely with DSIT, and as a Labour Government, we are committed to phasing out animal testing as quickly as possible, but obviously we need alternatives to be in place to do so.

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 16th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell]

The hon. Member should examine how Mauritius behaves in reality, which I will come to later. If we want a nation that will actually take these issues seriously, it is the United Kingdom. It is easy to sign a treaty, it is not so easy to follow it through in practice.

In what I believe to be an act of historic folly, this Government are to hand that amazing territory over to Mauritius. That nation does not have the record, the capability or the will to protect such a fragile environment. Its own waters have suffered from overfishing and poor enforcement. Its close alignment with China, and indeed India, should concern anyone who cares about the Indian ocean’s future. Indeed, the evidence speaks for itself. In the 2024 Environmental Performance Index, Mauritius ranked 109th for marine key biodiversity area protection, with a score of just 0.8 out of 100; 83rd for marine habitat protection; and 131st for marine protection stringency, down nearly 78%. Are these the credentials of a nation ready to steward one of the world’s most delicate ecosystems? The Government appear to think so. I disagree.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I am just wondering whether the hon. Member finds himself in the wrong debate?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I am overseeing the debate. If the hon. Member had been in the wrong debate, I would have pointed it out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Less than 1% of the high seas are fully protected; there could not be a more important time for this treaty. It is the world’s only viable pathway to meet the global biodiversity goal of protecting at least 30% of the world’s ocean before 2030. Along with my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I welcome the fact that the Government are finally bringing forward this legislation. It is disappointing that the UK was not among the first 60 countries to reach the threshold to get the treaty ratified, especially given the long cross-party support for the subject in this House, but I hope ratification will be swift to allow the UK a seat at the table at Ocean COP. We Liberal Democrats have long been pushing for the strongest possible marine environmental targets, both internationally and domestically, including through the ratification of the global oceans treaty.

The Bill is welcome, but we must not be complacent. Global plastic production and waste have doubled in the last 20 years, and more than 12 million tonnes of plastic are dumped into the ocean every single year, putting countless species at risk of extinction. In 2023, the BBC reported that there were more than 170 trillion pieces of plastic floating in the world’s oceans. That is simply shocking and totally unacceptable.

Biodiversity relies on healthy oceans, but plastic pollution, climate change and unsustainable fishing practices are destroying our marine biodiversity. With 10% of marine species at risk, we must act now. Communities across the world rely on the oceans for their livelihoods, jobs and food security—indeed, we all rely on the oceans for our livelihoods—but we are taking more from the ocean than can be replenished, with 90% of big fish populations depleted and 50% of coral reefs already destroyed.

The first Ocean COP is on the horizon for next year, which will give the UK an important seat at the table if we ratify the treaty in time. While there, the UK should champion further measures to protect our oceans, including a ban on bottom trawling in marine protected areas. Bottom trawling is a most terrifying practice that damages the seabed, kills animals and plants indiscriminately, and releases carbon from the sea floor in very large proportions, which drives climate change.

If Members have not watched the documentary “Ocean with David Attenborough”, please do—it is terrifying. Once I watched it, I made a pledge that I would not eat fish until we had at least signed the ocean treaty, so there is a personal reason why I push the Government for early ratification. I love fish, and this should not be a call not to eat fish; this is about protecting the oceans. If Members watch the David Attenborough film, they will see that a good and positive thing is that the oceans can recover very quickly if we give them the option to recover. That is why today is such an important day.

The British public are with us; some 81% of British adults say that they would like to see bottom trawling banned in MPAs, according to polling from Oceana. The Environmental Audit Committee backs the call to ban bottom trawling. In September, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs told the Environmental Audit Committee that it would not roll out an outright ban. I implore the Government to reconsider.

We must manage our territorial waters effectively, and we could start by implementing the Fisheries Act 2020 in full. Through that, we could reform the fishing quota distribution to phase out the fixed quota allocation system, which largely rewards those with the deepest pockets. It could be replaced with a system that rewards and incentivises lower impacts from fishing that deliver environmental, social and economic benefits to communities around our coast.

We must also look more closely at illegal and unregulated fishing. Hidden overfishing—when illegal discards are unaccounted for in fishing quotas—is driving stocks into severe decline. Marine groups are urging the Government to introduce a strategy to tackle overfishing by the end of 2026, including catch limits and a fair deal for fishers adjusting to lower catch limits.

The transparency around enforcement and monitoring of fishing activities in UK seas is not adequate. The Marine Management Organisation is not even required to publish data on the enforcement of fishing regulations. We were told that post Brexit, the UK would establish best-in-class fisheries management as an independent coastal state, but we have not taken advantage of that freedom to strengthen our regulations.

I welcome the Bill as an important starting point, but if we are serious about protecting the blue heart of our planet, this must be just the beginning of real action to restore the health of oceans across the world and here at home. I repeat the Liberal Democrats’ call for a coherent oceans policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for her remarks and for the attention that the FCDO has paid to the importance of marine conservation. The biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction treaty represents a transformation in the way that we protect nature in the high seas. I commend the Government for being an early proponent of the agreement, and I am so pleased—in fact, I am thrilled—to see that we are finally going to ratify it.

I feel that I have been witnessing the Chamber at its best this afternoon. To hear such passion and such well-informed expertise on both sides has been a real honour. It reminds one what an honour we all have in being Members of this place and sitting in a room to listen to such speeches, which has been wonderful. Let me confess that I am one of those people—I remember that when I came back from seeing sperm whales I was still weeping, and I apologised to the organiser of the trip that I seemed to just not be able to stop weeping, but she said, “Don’t worry, dear. We see lots of people like you on these trips.” I feel as though I have found my people, given the passion that has been expressed today for the high seas and for biodiversity.

Today, I want my speech to have a particular focus—please forgive me for this—because I believe that our commitment to this treaty can be tested by how we treat our current responsibilities. I join the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), in using the Chagos islands as a test. I apologise for not recognising that the Opposition have been talking about the biodiversity of the Chagos islands. Perhaps I was only focused on the considerable amount of time they have spent on the sovereignty of the Chagos islands. I have since spent the time available looking up their references to biodiversity, and there have been three of them, so I apologise for saying that there had not been any.

I have had a number of exchanges in this House with the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who has responsibility for Europe, North America and the overseas territories, about the vital importance of safeguarding marine protected areas around the Chagos islands. I am grateful for the assurances he has given me that the Government are committed to the continued protection of the unique and unparalleled environment of the Chagos archipelago.

However, the FCDO’s assurances, although welcome, really do not go far enough, but before I say why, I want to explain why these waters matter so much—not least because of their role in replenishing the high seas—and the extraordinary obligation that the UK owes the world to ensure that they remain protected. As has been said, these 640,000 sq km of near pristine ocean are among the most pristine in the world. They are home to the largest living coral atoll and to 58 islands. They are the breeding site for more than a quarter of a million pairs of seabirds, as well as the vital and unexplored deep-sea ecosystems that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) talked about with such passion.

The vast no-take zone that the UK established in 2010 provides a vital sanctuary for numerous endangered species. If this marine environment were damaged, it would do huge damage to the seas generally and to species already on the brink of extinction, such as the endangered hawksbill turtle, which forages in the waters of the Chagos islands and nests on their beaches, or the unique population of reef manta rays, which use the protected waters as a refuge and which would soon disappear if those waters became unprotected. This is exactly the kind of marine life that the BBNJ agreement seeks to protect through the establishment, among other measures, of marine protected areas in the high seas.

The vast marine protected area around the Chagos islands provides a safe corridor and foraging ground for vital migratory species and apex predators such as tuna, sharks and whales, and without it we would see their numbers crash much more widely across the world. In a warming world in which coral is dying at a terrifying rate, the coral in the Chagos archipelago is relatively healthy and acts as a reseeding bank for other reefs in the Indian ocean through larval dispersal. The reefs and marine life of the Chagos archipelago help to replenish degraded reefs and depleted fish stocks from east Africa to Indonesia. The coral in the Chagos archipelago has shown an extraordinary degree of resilience and an ability to recover even from bleaching events, and it is not known why. This resilience and the undisturbed nature of the Chagos ocean make it a really important site for scientific study. It could give us an important insight into what we can do next to save our coral reefs, and a proper insight into how healthy marine ecosystems function and the impact of climate change.

For the last 15 years, the UK has protected those waters and taken seriously its duties as the steward of those ecosystems, just as the BBNJ agreement invites the entire international community to do as stewards of the high seas. As the UK now hands them over to Mauritius, we have an equally serious duty to ensure that they remain protected. That brings me to the terms of the Chagos deal and the Minister of State’s evidence to my Foreign Affairs Committee, for which I am grateful to him.

The Minister noted that the UK and Mauritian Governments are committed to promoting the conservation of the environment of the archipelago. I obviously welcome that, and I pay tribute to the Government of Mauritius for their clear determination to protect nature. Nothing I am about to say is intended to cast any doubt on that commitment. The problem, however, is that Mauritius is a democracy—a vibrant democracy—in which Governments have historically had different attitudes to protecting the ocean. It is therefore not good enough for the Minister just to point to the commitment of the current Mauritian Government to marine protection; we need a basis for lasting confidence and mechanisms to ensure that these ecosystems remain protected for future generations. My principal concern is that there is no funding mechanism in place to ensure that Mauritius will properly resource marine protection in the Chagos archipelago and to incentivise it to do so. That stands in contrast to the treaty we are discussing.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank the right hon. Member for giving me an opportunity to say sorry to the shadow Minister for misunderstanding, when I intervened earlier, why he thought it was so important to mention the Chagos islands. I hope he will accept my apology.

[Emily Thornberry]

I must say that we are all behaving so well this afternoon.

I was saying that there is no incentive or funding mechanism in the Chagos archipelago deal, yet the treaty we are talking about—the subject of the Bill we are giving a Second Reading today—does have that very funding mechanism. Why does it? Because we know that that is needed for it to work. Without a dedicated funding mechanism for Chagos marine protection, in which a transfer of funds is contingent on the continuing protection of the marine environment, there is nothing to ensure that this protection will continue. The Mauritian Government want to allocate resources for doing so, but they operate in a resource-constrained environment. It is therefore deeply regrettable that both parties did not reach an agreement on future arrangements for environmental protection across the Chagos archipelago before signing the treaty. They should have allocated dedicated funds to it, or agreed a funding mechanism that would have been a proper basis for confidence. In short, the Chagos agreement should have followed the lead of the BBNJ agreement.

I remain concerned that there is a lack of concrete action on the future conservation of the Chagos archipelago’s unique marine environment and biodiversity. I appreciate the commitments that the Minister has given to the House and my Committee, but now actions need to be taken, drawing on the example presented by the BBNJ agreement. The ratification of the high seas treaty is testament to Britain’s renewed global leadership on climate and nature. That reputation risks being undermined by a failure to invest in the protection of the unique and extraordinary marine environment that is the Chagos islands.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we should all be proud of high-quality British producers like Longley farm. That is why, back in July, I announced our food strategy, which will build pride in British food by ensuring we have a food system that backs British food, grows the economy, feeds the nation, nourishes individuals and protects the planet—now and in the future.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

T3. Brits chew 4 billion pieces of plastic chewing gum each year. A single piece releases thousands of microplastics into the body that are linked to cancer, diabetes and strokes. Will the Government consider commissioning independent research into the environmental and health implications of plastic chewing gum?

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

I thank the hon. Lady for her important question, and I share her concern about the risks that microplastics may pose to the environment and human health. That is why we are looking at all sources of pollution that enter our rivers, lakes and seas, but there is obviously more work to be done to improve our understanding. The Environment Agency is collaborating with different sectors, including the water industry and National Highways, to increase our evidence base and knowledge of these materials.

May I also express my disappointment about the global plastics treaty? We were unable to reach an international agreement, but I reassure all Members of the House that the Government remain committed to seeking a global solution to the problem of plastic pollution that we all face.

Global Plastics Treaty

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this important debate, and I thank all Members who have contributed. Rarely do I have the privilege of being part of a debate in which there is such consensus, though we have not heard from the Conservative Front Benchers yet. I assume that there is broad consensus. That should give the Government a strong hand, allowing it to be a tough negotiator in the global plastics treaty talks.

Global plastic production and waste have doubled in the last 20 years—most of what I am saying has already been said; that is the beauty of winding-up speeches. According to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean), the figure stands at 12 million tonnes of plastic. I have another statistic for him: in 2023, the BBC reported that there are more than 170 trillion pieces of plastic floating in the world’s oceans. That is no way to treat our precious planet. Indeed, it puts countless species at risk of extinction.

The global plastics treaty offers a unique opportunity for a global, United Nations-led treaty, through which all countries are held to a high common standard on plastic consumption. The treaty would create a level playing field, incentivise and support international action, and forge a clear path toward a future free from plastic pollution. We Liberal Democrats have been instrumental in the campaign to finalise the treaty, and are looking towards next month’s negotiations in Geneva, in which we will, I hope, reach a breakthrough.

It is not just in this Chamber that there is great consensus on this issue. The majority of the UK public, the majority of member state Governments, the business community and civil society are all pushing in the same direction. More than 100 countries support a legally binding global target to cut plastic production. The UK must retain its ambition on this key issue.

I am one of 90 MPs who have signed Greenpeace’s pledge, which states:

“I support a strong global target to cut plastic production”.

Last year, a quarter of a million people took part in the big plastic count, an initiative run by Greenpeace and Everyday Plastic to count each piece of plastic and show the scale of the crisis in the UK. We have heard from many Members about how concerned the public are about this issue, and about their constituents taking part in clean-up actions.

Greenpeace is rightly concerned that, in each further round of talks, more fossil fuel lobbyists seek to derail negotiations and prevent any limits to plastic production from being agreed. The Government should look closely at precedents for how to prevent the influence of lobbyists over international agreements. The framework convention on tobacco control, for example, recognised the lobbying tactics of the tobacco industry and required parties to

“act to protect these policies from commercial and other vested interests”.

Governments across the globe must address the influence of fossil fuels in politics, and put the interests of people before polluters.

We must also address funding. A sustainable treaty that is built to last for generations must include a strong, dedicated, multilateral fund. Without a substantial financial package, the treaty will impose obligations on countries, particularly those in the global south, with which they will struggle to comply. The reality of the climate crisis globally means that countries will have to find money to clean up the mess that polluters have created. The Government should look for ways to place that financial burden mainly on the plastics industry, which has made billions in profits. I recognise that it is important to work with industries, but this is ultimately about the “polluter pays” principle—though, of course, we need to bring industry with us, to create practical and workable solutions that do not flop.

I will touch on one issue that has not been mentioned, but which a constituent has raised with me: plastic pollution from chewing gum. I was alerted to it by Keir Carnie, one of my Bath constituents, the founder of plant-based chewing gum company Nuud Gum. Many of us are completely unaware that chewing gum is, in fact, a single-use plastic. It commonly contains synthetic polymers—plastic materials derived from fossil fuels, and found in products such as carrier bags, glue and car tyres. In the UK, over 4 billion pieces of plastic gum are consumed annually, the majority of which end up as non- biodegradable plastic pollution. That gum breaks down into microplastics, contaminating soil, waterways and wildlife. Gum pollution is also one of the UK’s most pervasive types of litter, and costs local councils over £60 million per year in removal efforts. I am sure that every one of us remembers an annoying moment when we had to pick off a piece of gum from under our shoe.

Despite its similarities to other banned single-use plastics such as straws and cotton buds, chewing gum has evaded regulation. As with single-use vapes, the UK has a great opportunity to lead again in environmental and public health protection. I urge the Government to look into this issue, and I am happy to put them in contact with my constituent, who could provide evidence and support on what can be done.

We are at a pivotal moment. The scale and urgency of the plastic pollution crisis demands bold, co-ordinated global action. The treaty must be not only ambitious but fair, with proper funding and protections against vested interests. The UK must show leadership in the upcoming talks, championing a strong new global treaty that tackles plastic pollution at every stage of its lifecycle, so that future generations can enjoy the beautiful planet that we still enjoy—just about—today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Flooding: Planning and Developer Responsibilities

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[George Freeman]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is my constituency neighbour and good friend. Yes, my Bill absolutely does address that issue; I will take his steer and get to the guts of it. He is absolutely right; IDBs are crucial in our part of the world. When I first looked into this issue, I thought, “How come Norfolk is top of the league table for flooding?” I soon discovered—even more shockingly—that we are not; I think we are county No. 6 or 7 out of 10, which is why many hon. Members from other counties are here.

The problem is fourfold, and there are four provisions in my draft Bill—I am keen to use this debate as an opportunity to polish it. First, we need a much clearer and sharper set of responsibilities. At the top, the Environment Agency obviously has overall responsibility for flooding in the country, but this is a local problem, so we have to properly empower the strategic flood authorities locally and re-empower the IDBs. At the moment, many of them find that in dealing with flooding they come up against all sorts of environmental green tape produced by the very agencies that are there to stop flooding—as though the Environment Agency is more interested in filling our ditches and drains with mud and wild flowers than encouraging them to drain the water. People feel frustrated by well-intended green bureaucracy that is getting in the way of local solutions, so responsibilities should be put back locally.

Secondly, on funding, I strongly believe that we should be top-slicing and ringfencing some of the Environment Agency’s funding and giving it to IDBs and strategic flood authorities. It would be a rounding error for the Environment Agency—

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Order. Could I encourage the hon. Gentleman to come to an end, because it is a very short debate and many Members want to come in?

[George Freeman]

Certainly. Do we have 90 minutes?

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

We have 60 minutes.

[George Freeman]

I am sorry; I thought we had 90.

We have to put funding in the hands of people who have responsibility. Thirdly, I want to create planning liabilities for development companies so that they have a proper incentive—not just a vague instruction—to upgrade the drainage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should be bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I wish to call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson at 5.8 pm, so I am imposing an immediate time limit of two and a half minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Order. I will have to reduce the speaking time to two minutes. I remind hon. Members that if they take interventions, it eats into the time of those who are on the call list.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

I must contest my hon. Friend’s suggestion that he represents the wettest part of the country. Somerset is always at the forefront of flooding. Part of my constituency lies in the levels and moors site of special scientific interest. The area is increasingly threatened by inappropriate planning applications. Locally elected officials are crucial to good decision making for local communities. Does my hon. Friend agree that they play an important role in making sure that the right decisions are made for local communities and our environment?

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that his time is limited?

[Tim Farron]

I shall take no more interventions. I appear to have opened a very soggy can of worms, but my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) is absolutely correct.

Looking at the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and at the attitude of this Government and the previous Government towards planning, they seem to be seeking to centralise control of planning at a national level, yet to relax planning rules at a local level to give local planners, local councillors and national parks less power than they currently have. That is very dangerous. In the last Parliament, I served on the Bill Committee considering the very lengthy Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. Among the amendments proposed was one that we referred to as the infrastructure-first amendment. It would have given local authorities and national parks the power to say no to developments unless the infrastructure —including drainage, correct sewage provision and sufficient capacity—was there in advance. That power is so important, and it is missing today.

Many hon. Members, on both sides of the Chamber, have talked about the severe housing crisis. Some 7,000 people in my district are on the council house waiting list. We need to build, yet we know that there are a million properties in this country with planning permission, so it is not that the rules are too tough; it is that the developers are not building. We need to make sure that we point the finger of responsibility in the right direction.

New clause 7 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), would bring into force the sustainable drainage provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Shamefully, I must admit that I was the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for environment, food and rural affairs on the Bill that became that Act, 15 flippin’ years ago; I have been our EFRA spokesperson under every leader since Nick Clegg, including under myself, because there were only eight of us and someone had to do it. I remember the Bill very well. What a tragedy, and what an outrage, that schedule 3 to the Act has still not been brought into force, 15 years on. We aim to ensure that it is.

I am mindful of time, but this is a timely debate. Last week, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about the deeply concerning issue of flood defence spending. At the Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that there would be a review after the 2025-26 financial year. We are into that financial year now, so we are getting close. It is deeply troubling. My communities in Cumbria were massively affected by Storm Desmond nearly 10 years ago. The cost of that flooding incident was £500 million.

I am watching the clock, so I will simply say this: cutting flood defence spending and taking shortcuts in development that allow flooding to happen are catastrophic false economies—

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Order. I call the shadow Minister.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

Thank you, Mrs Hobhouse.I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) on securing a really important debate. There is no better champion on this issue in Parliament. He is bringing together many all-party parliamentary groups to specifically tackle and bring to the Minister’s attention the important issue of flooding and is setting up his own flood caucus, not only among parliamentary colleagues, but prominently within the county of Norfolk—which is invaluable. My hon. Friend mentioned the 22 villages that have been flooded in his constituency, and all of us have referenced our own impacted communities, so I know just how important this issue is.

I want to address some of my remarks by echoing some of the concerns that have been raised in this debate, because flooding devastates communities, families and the health and wellbeing of individuals who experience the trauma of flooding. It devastates our farmers and our economy at all levels and it represents a threat to life. What is worse, for some it is not a one-off event but a frequent occurrence. Far too many people are impacted. I am proud to say that the previous Government took robust action on flooding. Since 2010, more than 600,000 properties and 900,000 acres of farmland have been better protected by Government-backed schemes. In 2020, the Government announced a doubling of the flood defences budget, including £100 million for the frequently flooded allowance.

While those statistics represent vital progress, we must recognise, as has been indicated, that there is always much more to do. I will just canter through some of the points that have been made, because it is quite right that when dealing with water and with flooding, a catchment approach is always the focus. That deals with not only our farmers, but with our housing developers and our infrastructure providers. It starts right at the top, upstream, dealing with our moorland restoration projects and ensuring that our farmers have the funding to deal with environmental mitigation. That is why it is deeply frustrating that the Government have stopped sustainable farming incentive applications. While there is an acknowledgment that they have opened it up to an additional 303,000 applications on the back of our calls, it is nevertheless worrying to many of our farming community. That is exacerbated by issues such as the family farm tax, which is creating uncertainty in our agricultural sector.

The role of developers has been mentioned by all in this room and I agree that water companies need to be statutory consultees as part of that process. I also agree that planning considerations such as SuDS ponds and the design of houses—as has been illustrated by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Julie Minns)—need to be taken into account when new developments are built. Financial contributions must be considered too, because far too often flood alleviation schemes are not established at speed to deal with the amount of development that is coming down the line. That impacts not only settlements further downstream, but agricultural businesses. Therefore, when looking at flood alleviation schemes, it is right that those schemes are attractive enough for a landowner to enter into such an arrangement, and therefore the remuneration that is associated with those flood alleviation schemes needs to be properly addressed.

The Environment Agency, internal drainage boards and land managers were also discussed. We very strongly advocate a loosening up of the relationship between the Environment Agency, our IDBs, who do a fantastic job recognised by many in this room, and the land managers—who sometimes just want to get on and clean the ditches, but are unfortunately penalised for doing so at the moment. I am sure the Minister will be aware that the advice from officials in the Environment Agency is “do not dredge” and “do not remove that vegetation from those EA-managed assets”. I would encourage the Minister to push back on that advice and say that dredging is an option further downstream and that removing vegetation from EA assets should be a consideration.

I also address the issue of insurance, because that is vitally important, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan). Flood Re is incredibly important if we are able to provide reassurance for those developments that have been built after the kick-in date. We would advocate the Government going stronger and faster with the recommendations that have been made in this debate.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Could I remind the Minister to leave a couple of minutes for the Member in charge of the debate to wind up?

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Wera Hobhouse, who I know is now anxious.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Like people in Hartlepool, we in Bath recognise that the Conservative Government left our flood defences in a poor state, and we welcome the extra funding that the Bath flood defence scheme has received. However, we worry that it has come too late in a lot of cases. Is there a timeline for when my Bath constituents will actually see improvements?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue. As I said, we are delivering a record £2.65 billon investment in building, maintaining and upgrading flood defences, and that money will be spent over the next two years. We will shortly announce some of the projects that are going ahead in the next financial year, and next year we will announce even more. There will be an announcement this year for the next financial year, and an announcement next year for the second half of the two-year record investment. That shows out commitment to building, maintaining and improving flood defences up and down our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

I can confirm that this Government and the CPS take seriously prosecuting all crimes, including the most serious ones. Equality before the law is a fundamental principle that underpins the rule of law and is foundational to this country.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Many victims are so traumatised after an assault that it takes them some time to come forward. That causes delays and allows perpetrators to erase their traces. What more can we do to encourage any victim of assault to come forward as quickly as possible, knowing that they will have support as soon as they report something?

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. Member raises an important point. The CPS is working right across the country to ensure that victims feel more able to come forward and that its service to victims improves. She will understand that the court backlog is key; unfortunately, we inherited a record court backlog from the previous Government, and we have to tackle it. The Lord Chancellor is taking a range of measures to get it down, so that victims will have the confidence that when they come forward they will have their day in court and justice will be done.

Climate and Nature Bill

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie]

I could not agree more with the hon. Member; in fact, it is quite nice to hear the Liberal Democrats acknowledge that they were actually part of the Government over the last 14 years—they do not always choose to do so. As to the point about national security and energy security, that is why I am so concerned about the Labour Government’s plans for our offshore oil and gas industry. Why would we want to rely more on imports, as the Government will, should they go ahead and accelerate the decline in the North sea? However, I am sure we will continue to have that debate as we move forward.

If this private Member’s Bill contained measures to ensure a pragmatic and proportionate response to climate change, with households and bill payers at its core, and defended our British wildlife, nature and countryside, I am sure we would all support its aims and ambitions. Indeed, colleagues and friends who support it do so with the admirable, and indeed laudable, intention of seeing the United Kingdom protect the environment, and it is not that ambition with which we take umbrage. However, it is clear that we should not support the damaging measures the Bill would require. If it became law, it would damage our country, our prosperity, the lives of individuals and industries across the United Kingdom.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I wonder where the shadow Minister was when the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) said, just 15 minutes ago, that this is not an either/or between prosperity and protecting nature and the climate.

[Andrew Bowie]

I was actually right here on the Front Bench listening to my hon. Friend, and I agreed with a lot of what he said. However, we are here to debate the contents of the Bill and to decide whether they are something we should support, and I am afraid—to break with the consensus that has been expressed across the House this morning—that we cannot.

The Bill would undermine the power of this Parliament and its democratically elected Members and would bind their hands. As the Bill suggests, the Secretary of State would be duty-bound to act as directed by an unelected body. A world with a cleaner climate and with thriving nature and wildlife is one we all aspire to; it is the core belief of Conservativism that we should seek to leave the country and the world in a better place than that in which we found them, for both our children and our grandchildren. But I am afraid that this Bill would not do that.

In government, we aspired to be a world leader in the energy sector and to embrace a new energy mix that would reduce our carbon footprint, and that is what we did. We should want to pave the way for other nations, but it should be a path that they would actually want to follow. If the Bill means green levies, soaring bills, the highest electricity prices in the world, boiler taxes, job losses, and rejecting our ability to produce fuel domestically, while increasing imports from abroad and generating lower tax revenues as a result, nobody will follow this path.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

I am going to speak at great length on flooding and water and the measures we have already taken—I have several pages on that.

Let me say what this mission-driven Government are all about. We know one of our missions is to make the UK a clean energy superpower, including accelerating to net zero emissions while seizing the economic opportunities that come with that. We are back in the business of climate leadership and will restore the UK’s position as a global leader on climate action, delivering at home and working abroad with our international partners.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I can confirm, having been a Member of the previous Parliament, that I see a transformative difference in what this Government are doing compared with the previous Government. I also absolutely believe in cross-party working. A crucial aspect of the Bill is that it ensures we in the UK account for overseas emissions and ecological damage driven by our imports. Can she confirm that the Government will also look at emissions from our imports?

Environmental Protection

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

We Liberal Democrats welcome this initiative from the Government, although in our manifesto we went further and committed ourselves to introducing a deposit return scheme for food and drink bottles and containers.

We agree with the Government that a scheme of this kind will foster a nature-positive economy, tackle plastic pollution, and boost recycling efforts across Britain. Such schemes are a proven strategy worldwide to increase recycling while minimising waste and littering: they support our environmental goals while also providing an income stream that will protect our public funds. However, I have some concerns about the scheme’s implementation.

The Environment Agency is currently underfunded and struggling to meet its regulatory obligations, particularly in respect of water quality, so we must ensure that this statutory instrument comes with appropriate support and additional funding for the agency to handle this new responsibility effectively. The scheme should also be as convenient as possible for people, whether they are “on the go” or at home, and—as has already been mentioned—small businesses need support in order to transition smoothly into the new system. We must ensure that the introduction of a deposit return scheme does not add to their financial burden. We should be seeking to work with small grocery businesses and convenience retailers to help them to introduce the scheme in an affordable way.

I urge the Government to operate a joint scheme throughout the United Kingdom. The Food & Drink Federation has called for a joined-up scheme across the UK, and only this morning I attended a roundtable event on the future of recycling where it was agreed that different schemes in different parts of the UK would make it extremely difficult for those in the industry. They operate throughout the UK, and it would not be viable for them to sell different products in the devolved nations; moreover, they have no control over which parts of the UK their products would be sold or deposited in. A can of soft drink purchased in Bristol should be deposited in the same way as one purchased in Cardiff. A single UK scheme, aligned in scope, fees, processes and labelling, is essential to minimise costs and prevent confusion—and, in that context, it is important that we learn the lessons of the Scottish deposit return scheme.

We must also consider the important role that local authorities will play in making the scheme work successfully, and ensure that they are properly supported. That too has been mentioned during the debate.

Many local authorities collect from the kerbside in bins or boxes, where recycling is co-mingled and then sent on to another company, which sorts and separates the recycled materials. The cost to local authorities for this service depends on whether items can be recycled for a profit by such companies: if they can make a profit from the items that people recycle, councils will be charged less. Some councils now worry that dry and mixed recycling will become less valuable if cans are included in the deposit return scheme, which will lead to higher costs for local authorities, whose resources are already stretched. So far, DEFRA has committed to work to understand the impact of the DRS on local authorities, and I hope that it will be fully considered.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the introduction of the deposit return scheme. We have some reservations about its implementation, but it is a positive step towards a more sustainable and green future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy]

As I have mentioned, this is an important issue, and I look forward to discussing it in more detail. Work to assess the risks of PFAS, and to inform policy and regulatory approaches—including banning or highly restricting certain chemicals and addressing issues caused by their historical use—is continuing. The nature of PFAS chemicals and their persistence once in the environment means that there are no quick fixes, but this is a global challenge. Innovation in suitable PFAS alternatives is needed, and we are working to harness industry leadership in the transition away from PFAS. I assure the hon. Lady that work on this issue is ongoing.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

6. What his planned timetable is for the introduction of legislation to ban imports of hunting trophies.

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

May I wish you, Mr Speaker, all the staff of the House, and all those in our public services who will be working over the weekend a very merry Christmas and a safe and successful new year?

The UK has a long history of championing the global conservation of endangered species. We are in the process of extending the Ivory Act 2018 to include four further species—hippopotamus, killer whale, narwhal and sperm whale—in addition to elephants. The Government have also committed to banning the import of hunting trophies. We are considering the most effective way to do so.

[Wera Hobhouse]

It has been 10 years since the senseless killing of Cecil the lion. It is still legal to import hunting trophies into this country. There has for a long time been cross-party support for banning trophy hunting. In 2023, the Labour party asked the then Conservative Government, “What is stopping you bringing in legislation? Stop the dither and delay.” Why are this Government still dithering and delaying?

[Mary Creagh]

With the greatest of respect, the hon. Lady’s party was in government for five years, and the Conservative party was in government for 14 years. It is always good after five months in office to be criticised for previous failures.

I agree with the hon. Lady that the Conservatives cannot be trusted on animal welfare. They failed to pass the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill, which would have stopped selfish hunters who slaughter and display endangered animals’ body parts for their own perverse self-gratification, and they dropped the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, which would have ended puppy smuggling, puppy farming and pet theft. As I say, we are looking for a suitable legislative vehicle, and we will do it in Government time.