Wet Wipes: Plastic Ban
Emma Hardy Excerpts(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I welcome the chance to set out the actions this Government are taking to tackle the problems caused by wet wipes that contain plastic.
I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for the work she has done to raise this important topic, and for her years of campaigning to bring it to the fore. She has had a high-profile campaign to ban wet wipes that contain plastic, including tabling a private Member’s Bill in November 2021. Her campaign has earned cross-party support and backing from major environmental groups, which have paid tribute to her, including Thames21, the World Wide Fund for Nature, the Marine Conservation Society and Surfers Against Sewage. She has also worked with major retailers, including Boots and Tesco, to encourage them to remove plastic wet wipes from their shelves.
My hon. Friend has been instrumental in getting us to this point. In fact, I would go as far as to say that without her contribution, we probably would not be at the stage we are now. I pay a full and complete tribute to her. She shows exactly what we can do when we persist. “Persist! Persist!” was the recommendation given to me as a new MP.
The Government are aware of the growing concerns about wet wipes as a source of plastic pollution often found in our natural environment, including in our waterways and on our beaches. They break down into smaller pieces in the water environment, causing huge problems with microplastic pollution, which is harmful to human and animal health.
The good news is that, on 16 September, we laid an affirmative statutory instrument to ban the supply and sale of those harmful products, alongside which we published a full economic impact assessment and explanatory memorandum. The SI debates in Parliament are scheduled to be held shortly, with the Commons debate on 3 November, and the Lords debate on 10 November.
Banning wet wipes that contain plastic will reduce plastic and microplastic pollution, as well as the volumes of microplastics entering waste water treatment sites when wrongly flushed. Additionally, it will reduce marine plastic pollution. There is strong public support for a ban. Very little unites the nation, but 95% of respondents agree with the proposal to ban plastic-containing wet wipes. We are pleased to be taking forward this long-awaited action.
We have been working closely with devolved Governments across the UK to agree a joined-up approach, which is going well. We welcome the decision that some retailers have already taken to stop selling wet wipes that contain plastic, but, of course, the Government need to show leadership from the top and introduce a ban.
Banning wet wipes that contain plastic is part of our wider commitment to encourage more sustainable behaviours around the consumption of single-use plastics. We are also looking more widely at the circular economy for plastics—a future where we keep our resources for longer, where waste is reduced, where we accelerate the path to net zero, where we see investment in critical infrastructure and green jobs, and where our economy prospers and nature thrives. We will publish the first ever circular economy strategy for England in the coming months.
The Government recognise the scale and impact of plastic pollution on the environment, and we are focused on preventing and reducing plastics, along with other litter, from entering the environment.
Liam Conlon
We have some fantastic local groups in Beckenham and Penge, including the Crystal Palace Park Trust, Friends of Cator Park and the Birkbeck community initiative, as well as eco-councils at schools such as Stewart Fleming primary and Langley Park school for boys. Will the Minister join me in thanking them for their incredible work to protect our local natural environment? Does she agree that the changes we are making in this place will support that effort to protect our natural environment for future generations?
Emma Hardy
I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in thanking all the local groups and children. As has been mentioned, children are hugely interested in this topic, and in the disgusting stories about what ends up down the toilet—I find young children are particularly fascinated with that. I heard an amusing story about a mattress that ended up in the sewer. How on earth does a mattress end up in a sewer? But I was told that if it can be produced, it can end up in the sewers.
People are not always aware of how the actions they take in the home can have a damaging impact on their drains, sewer network and water quality. Admittedly, they may not be able to flush a mattress down the toilet, but they are certainly flushing many other things, including wet wipes, sanitary products, nappies, cotton pads, cotton buds, cigarette butts, plasters and dental floss—I am sad to say that, when I was a child, a few goldfish were flushed as well.
The public have a role to play in ensuring that cooking fats are also not poured down the sink, and that wet wipes and other unflushables are binned rather than flushed. Those are small steps, but they are significant when added together, and they will improve the quality of our rivers, natural environment and wildlife.
The Government are supportive of campaigns that encourage the correct disposal of wet wipes, including Water UK’s “Bin the Wipe” campaign, and we welcome the innovative steps that water companies and others are taking to tackle blockages. One of my favourite developments is Northumbrian Water’s Pipebot patrol. Pipebot is a tiny robot that goes around the sewerage network, inspecting the pipework and raising blockage alerts before a sewer floods. When I first saw it—a tiny robot that has little tools to break down fatbergs or whatever else it comes across—my reaction was, “You are putting WALL-E down the sewers!” [Laughter.] Good for WALL-E, but if he is patrolling the sewers, I do not think he will have quite the same happy ending as he did in the film. Such innovations are emerging, with devices being used to clear blockages, capture wipes and help to identify from which homes or businesses the wipes are coming, with the aim of educating people and advising them on the correct disposal methods.
I am also pleased that the Port of London Authority and Thames Water have cleaned up “wet wipe island”, which has already been mentioned—a huge, 180-tonne fatberg on the River Thames. I have also heard of an example of the circular economy at its best, because we are looking at ways to use fatbergs as valuable sources of biofuel and biodiesel to power buses and trucks. Trucks and buses powered by fatbergs—who would have thought it?
As for the next steps that the Government are taking, the Independent Water Commission has recommended that we take measures to stop pollutants, such as wet wipes, entering the system. We will consider all of the commission’s recommendations.
I will now answer the specific questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney. On the lead-in times, we have had to act carefully. We are working with businesses to make sure there is time for them to adapt and to mitigate the risks of excess stocks of wet wipes containing plastics being sent to landfill or being incinerated, which is a concern. That is why we have given the time that we have; our ban is expected to come in from spring 2027, which provides for an 18-month transition period. We are working as quickly as we can, taking into account some of the unintended consequences that might arise from going more quickly.
There is also a medical exemption. Consultation responses and stakeholder engagement with healthcare professionals have indicated that a medical exemption is required until viable plastic-free alternatives are available for medical use. Obviously, research is ongoing and things are developing quickly in this area. However, it is essential to ensure that those who require these products for medical purposes still have access to them.
To account for those who require wet wipes containing plastic for medical care in their own home, the medical exemption will allow for the supply and sale of wet wipes containing plastic by registered pharmacists. This is particularly important for infection control purposes. Wet wipes containing plastic will not be permitted for sale on the shelves; people who require them will need to get them through a pharmacist. This is a similar model to the plastic straw ban, where there was a particularly strong reason why certain people might need to continue using plastic straws. It is the same situation with wet wipes.
We are obviously continuing to look at labelling and to consider further action in that area, if needed. And one of the recommendations from the Independent Water Commission was to look at extended producer responsibility for waste water treatment, and we are considering whether we would want that. As we know, a lot of this ends up in: “Write in at the end”.
I hope my responses have also helped to answer the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba). I thank him and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) for their contributions to the debate today, in which there is huge interest.
Together with the building blocks that the Government have already put in place, this change will mark the most fundamental reset of our water system in a generation, as we consider and take forward the recommendations of the Independent Water Commission on dealing with many of the problems facing water, including pollution, problems around waste water, and what ends up in our rivers, lakes and seas.
In conclusion, I reiterate that banning wet wipes containing plastic is a necessary measure that we are taking forward. I look forward to the debates on the draft regulations to ban these harmful products. I hope the proposals will have the support of all colleagues here today.
Question put and agreed to.
Bathing Water Regulations 2013
Emma Hardy Excerpts(2 days, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
Cleaning up our waters are a priority for the Government. The Government will respond to the recommendations published in the final report of the Independent Water Commission through a White Paper and will bring forward root and branch reform to secure better outcomes for the environment and customer bills, restoring trust and accountability. Together with the actions the Government have already taken, this will mark the most fundamental reset to our water system in a generation, and we are keen to work closely with stakeholders, looking for a new partnership between Government, the sector, investors, and communities which will deliver the change the public expects.
Bathing waters are a vital public amenity and continue to attract considerable public interest. The Government are committed to improving the quality of our coastal waters, rivers and lakes for the benefit of the environment and everyone who use them. We are continually working to improve and modernise our bathing waters system to support the Government growth agenda.
Today, DEFRA, alongside the Welsh Government, has laid before Parliament a statutory instrument to amend the Bathing Water Regulations 2013. The amendments in the Bathing Water (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2025 reflect the outcome of our November 2024 consultation. The Government response to our consultation was published in March 2025 and outlined our intention to deliver three core reforms alongside several technical amendments. These changes respond directly to calls from stakeholders to modernise the framework governing bathing waters.
Core reform 1 removes the automatic de-designation provision from the 2013 regulations, which states that if a bathing water site receives a classification of “poor” for five consecutive years, it is automatically de-designated, and the Environment Agency or National Resources Wales must issue permanent advice against bathing. Instead, following a site receiving five consecutive “poor” classifications, the EA or NRW will advise the appropriate Minister on whether it is feasible and not disproportionately expensive to improve the site to “sufficient” standard. Ministers will then make a final decision on whether a site should continue to be designated. This change reflects our commitment to fairness and long-term environmental stewardship.
Core reform 2 amends the process to designate a bathing water to include consideration of the feasibility of improving a site’s water quality to at least “sufficient” water quality as a criterion for final designation. This reform also introduces consideration of whether there is likely to be a significant risk to the physical safety of bathers from the particular features of the water (where Ministers have reasonable grounds to believe this), or if it is likely that a large number of bathers will have a significant impact on environmental protection measures at site, prior to final designation. This reform will support tailored, site-specific decisions that better protect public health and the environment.
To support this reform, we are working with an external research organisation to develop a new feasibility assessment to ensure any decisions made under this reform are fair and accurate. This assessment will be developed through a stakeholder-driven process, ensuring transparency and inclusivity in the development of the assessment and associated guidance. This guidance will be published at the beginning of the 2026 general bathing season and application window.
Core reform 3 amends the fixed-date bathing season in the 2013 regulations, allowing Ministers to set site-specific bathing seasons where appropriate. While a general season (15 May to 30 September) will remain in the 2025 regulations, flexible, locally appropriate dates—including monitoring periods—can be determined to reflect actual water use. Next steps on how this reform will operate in practice will be developed in partnership with stakeholders and shared through published guidance in due course.
The technical amendments will modernise the regulatory framework, improving the Environment Agency’s operational efficiency and aligning legislation with best practice. These include removing outdated sampling requirements, clarifying data standards, and streamlining administrative processes.
The reforms will come into force in stages to ensure a balanced and effective roll-out. Notably:
Core reform 1 and core reform 3, along with the technical amendments, will come into force on 21 November 2025.
Core reform 2, which introduces further considerations ahead of designation, will come into force on 15 May 2026.
This phased approach ensures that we act swiftly to prevent the potential automatic de-designation of sites while allowing sufficient time to develop comprehensive guidance for future applications.
These reforms mark a significant milestone in our commitment to protecting public health, enhancing environmental quality, and empowering communities. By modernising the Bathing Water Regulations 2013, we are ensuring that our approach remains fit for purpose in the face of evolving challenges and opportunities.
[HCWS999]
Water Company Performance Reports
Emma Hardy Excerpts(1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
Today, the Environment Agency will publish its environmental performance assessment (EPA) for 2024 and Ofwat will publish their water company performance report (WCPR) for the 2024-25 financial year.
These assessments are being brought together for the first time, as a first step to join up economic and environmental regulation of the water industry ahead of the formation of the single water regulator.
Ofwat’s report shows a mixed picture, with improvement in some areas such as internal sewer flooding and increasing the number of vulnerable customers included on the priority services register. However, both reports show that pollution and customer experience performance remain concerning. Polluting our waterways is unacceptable and we are taking decisive action. The increased transparency and accountability in the sector is revealing the full picture. The sector must now step up to deliver improvements for the benefit of customers and the environment.
Since July last year, this Government have introduced the landmark Water (Special Measures) Act which provides the most significant increase in enforcement powers to the regulators in a decade, giving regulators the teeth they need to take tougher action against water companies. The Act has started to drive meaningful improvements in the performance and culture of the water industry. It has banned unfair bonuses, and Government have ensured money is ringfenced for investment.
A record 87 investigations into water companies have been launched in England since the election, as part of a crackdown on sewage dumping. The Environment Agency has increased its capacity for inspections of water company assets fourfold, with over 4,000 inspections completed from April 2024 to March 2025. As of April 2025, the Environment Agency has increased its target for inspections to 10,000 inspections per year as part of the Government wider focus on holding companies to account and improving our water environment.
To fund their tougher inspections and enforcement regime, the Environment Agency has increased its water quality charges to £149 million from 2025-26, ensuring water companies, not taxpayers, pay the cost of regulating the sector. These charges include permit charges on water companies for inspections and the new enforcement levy, which will enable Environment Agency to recover the costs of their enforcement activity.
Since the start of this year, water companies have been required to publish data related to discharges from all storm overflows within one hour of the discharge beginning. In addition to this, the Water (Special Measures) Act introduced a new duty for water companies to publish data related to discharges from all emergency overflows within one hour of the discharge beginning. This will create an unprecedented level of transparency, enabling the public and regulators to see where, and how often, overflows are discharging, and hold water companies to account.
The Government also updated the guaranteed standards scheme (GSS) regulations resulting in an up to tenfold increase for customer compensation when they have been failed by water companies. A key step in the Government mission to reform the water sector, the move marked the first uplift in compensation rates in 25 years, recognising the urgent need to bring payments in line with inflation and properly compensate households for poor service.
And yesterday we kick-started the process of introducing new automatic penalties, which will deliver swift action if water companies break the rules. These penalties will streamline the penalty process for offences that can be identified and evidenced quickly, delivering a transparent and robust enforcement regime that drives real change.
On 23 October 2024, the Government also asked Sir Jon Cunliffe to lead the biggest review of the water sector since privatisation in 1989. Following Sir Jon’s final report, the Government announced the intention to establish a single regulator for water, to improve regional planning, and to establish a new statutory water ombudsman. The Government also intend to end operator self-monitoring, transferring oversight to the new regulator and transitioning to open monitoring to increase transparency and help restore public trust. To support transition to this new regime, we announced our intention to update ministerial guidance and direction to Ofwat and the Environment Agency and will publish a White Paper, responding to the independent review.
The reports published today show the full extent of the problem, and we have already taken action to reform the water sector. While we cannot expect change to happen overnight, these measures, alongside a record £104 billion investment in water infrastructure, means together we will clean up our rivers, lakes and seas.
[HCWS985]
Draft Control of Mercury (Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Emma Hardy Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Control of Mercury (Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. This affirmative statutory instrument introduces mechanisms to enforce the EU mercury regulation in Northern Ireland under the Windsor framework that maintains Northern Ireland’s dual market access to the EU single market and the UK internal market. The mercury regulation applies in a modified form in Northern Ireland, and before I set out the instrument’s purpose and scope in further detail I will provide some background to the arrangements that apply in Northern Ireland.
Dental amalgam is a dental filling material that is made up of a mixture of mercury and metal alloys, including silver, tin and copper. It is a stable and safe filling material that is widely used across the UK to fill cavities caused by tooth decay. Compared with alternative fillings, such as composite resin, dental amalgam fillings are typically cheaper and take less time to apply.
Last year, the EU introduced amendments to the UK mercury regulations that apply under the Windsor framework. Those amendments introduced a ban on the use and export of dental amalgam from 1 January 2025 and a ban on the manufacture and import of dental amalgam from 1 July 2026. An immediate ban on dental amalgam would have led to longer dental treatment times in Northern Ireland, meaning fewer patients being treated. That could ultimately have worsened oral health outcomes in Northern Ireland, so the UK Government made representations to the EU on that issue.
Following scrutiny by Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the European Commission recognised Northern Ireland’s specific circumstances last year and set out bespoke arrangements for Northern Ireland. That means that Northern Ireland will have a much longer transition period until December 2034, or until an earlier phase-out date is agreed with the Minamata convention on mercury, an international treaty to which the UK and the EU are parties.
During that time, businesses and dentists in Northern Ireland may continue to import and use dental amalgam. Such treatment may be given only to UK residents and imports must be proportionate with use. The gradual phase-out of dental amalgam will allow more time to transition to alternative fillings. That will give dentists time to improve practice efficiency, gain experience with more complex fillings, adapt to emerging alternatives and support the training of dental professionals.
Let me say briefly that I know the Windsor framework and its operation are of immense interest to hon. Members, and I know that questions of democratic legitimacy and the effectiveness of the framework’s democratic scrutiny mechanisms are frequently considered and discussed. That discourse is often about whether and when mechanisms such as the Stormont brake should be used, but these bespoke arrangements illustrate the entire purpose and benefit of the Windsor framework.
In this case, we saw an issue that would pose particular difficulties for Northern Ireland. Members of the Legislative Assembly scrutinised the issue and voiced their concerns. The Government acted on those concerns and the EU Commission recognised them. The arrangements were then adapted accordingly. That pragmatic ability to work collegiately on a foundation of trust, partnership and credibility to identify and address problems lies at the heart of the Windsor framework.
The dental amalgam exemptions on use and import have applied in Northern Ireland since 1 January 2025, and the Northern Ireland authorities have taken the required steps to implement them, including by issuing further guidance and engaging with dentists. The purpose of the instrument is to further strengthen the enforcement measures that the Northern Ireland authorities can take on the ground to support the arrangements in Northern Ireland, including powers to enforce the prohibitions to export or manufacture dental amalgam; additional reporting requirements for dental amalgam importers; and restrictions on dental amalgam use for patients, as set out in the European Commission notice. The statutory instrument also implements the allowed exemptions to the import and use of dental amalgam while Northern Ireland gradually phases out its use.
More broadly, I recognise the concerns about mercury’s environmental impact. It is a highly toxic substance that can cause harm to human health and the environment if improperly managed. When dental amalgam is exposed to high temperatures, such as during cremation, the mercury it contains can enter the environment as a toxic gas if there are no mercury emission controls in place. I am happy to confirm that the crematoriums in Northern Ireland are fitted with control technologies to reduce mercury emissions. Under the environmental improvement plan, we are taking steps and further developing plans to reduce mercury emissions, including from crematoriums. As part of that, the Government will soon publish an updated process guidance note for crematoriums and the accompanying consultation response, which will include further guidance on emission abatement technologies in crematoriums.
In conclusion, the draft regulations are clear in their purpose of ensuring that Northern Ireland authorities have the power to enforce EU export and manufacturing prohibitions, reporting arrangements and exemptions on dental amalgam use and import, as set out in the European Commission notice. They will also mean that Northern Ireland continues to benefit from the exemptions on dental amalgam use and import, allowing for a longer transition period and equity of dental provision with the rest of the United Kingdom. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I particularly pay tribute to our colleagues from Northern Ireland for coming and sharing their perspective on this and how it relates to the communities they represent. I will do my best to respond to the questions.
Affordable and accessible dental care is important to many of us, so it is no surprise that we have had such an interesting discussion covering many points. Not all will be directly related to the statutory instrument, but that does not mean it is not important that we cover them. I will try my best to run through many of the questions raised today.
On the proposed updates to regulations and what action we are taking, the United Kingdom will lay legislation this year to prohibit the import, export and manufacture in Great Britain of a number of products, including those containing additionally added mercury. We are already, as the United Kingdom Government, looking to reduce mercury use across the whole of the United Kingdom. These products will be phased out in Northern Ireland by the EU mercury regulations. The legislation will prohibit several mercury-containing products, including fluorescent lamps, photographic film and paper, and propellant for satellites and spacecraft. This contributes to our goal of protecting human health and the environment from the harmful effects of mercury. That offers some reassurance that the Government are looking at mercury across the whole of the United Kingdom.
We are currently working to assess the future use of dental amalgam across the UK ahead of the Minamata convention. We have engaged with Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, ready for discussions at the Minamata convention’s conference of the parties next month to look at what we are doing as a country. On the assessment of how this will impact Northern Ireland over time, Northern Ireland’s Department of Health will consistently monitor and evaluate the provision of both amalgam and non-amalgam fillings, along with regular consultation with professional dental organisations to obtain feedback on any issues that might come up. In addition, the national plan for phasing out dental amalgam, which will be developed to support a smooth transition, will provide important information as we proceed.
On Northern Ireland’s involvement in preparing for Minamata, Northern Ireland is having conversations, along with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. In response to the question from the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, stakeholders like the British Dental Association referred to being able to phase out dental amalgam in evidence given to the Northern Ireland Assembly, which was considered when working with the Northern Ireland Departments. The specific arrangements for Northern Ireland allow for its continued use and import until 2034. This date will be brought forward if parties to the Minamata convention agree to an earlier phase-out date. The UK, along with the EU, is a signatory to the convention and we would be bound by that decision.
There was an investigation by the Democratic Scrutiny Committee at the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the Windsor framework set out to address the democratic deficit challenges in Northern Ireland by establishing democratic safeguards, including the Stormont brake. Following the work of the Northern Ireland Assembly, we made representations to the EU, which made the changes to the mercury rules for dental amalgam. As far as I am aware—I have asked officials to check—there is no manufacturer of amalgam in Northern Ireland, so that should not have an impact. On the Windsor framework more broadly, we work constructively with all stakeholders—the EU, the Northern Ireland Executive, political parties, businesses and civil society in Northern Ireland—to achieve these aims.
As we consider the instrument before us, it is clear that our approach must balance regulatory compliance, environmental responsibility and the practical realities across the United Kingdom. Our actions are guided not only by domestic priorities but by our international commitments under the Minamata convention and the evolving expectations of our global partners. As further discussions occur at international level, the UK will continue to play a constructive role grounded in evidence and a shared commitment to progress. I thank all Members for their contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Control of Mercury (Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Water Sector Penalties Consultation
Emma Hardy Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
The Government are pleased to announce that today we have launched a consultation on strengthening the Environment Agency’s tools for enforcing against offences committed by water companies.
Currently, the Environment Agency has to be satisfied “beyond reasonable doubt”—the criminal standard of proof—that an offence has been committed to issue monetary penalties. We are proposing changes that would allow the Environment Agency to impose penalties to the civil standard of proof “on the balance of probabilities”. This will enable minor to moderate offences to be enforced more quickly, cost effectively and proportionately.
We are also consulting on the introduction of automatic penalties. These fixed penalties would be triggered in specific circumstances including late reporting of significant pollution incidents, failure to report monitoring data for storm and emergency overflows monthly, and where there is not accurate and reliable monitoring in place to measure water abstraction. Automatic penalties are designed to streamline the penalty process for offences that can be identified and evidenced quickly.
These changes will deliver a clear, transparent and robust enforcement regime that drives real change. The penalties will act as a proportionate deterrent, incentivising water companies to improve their performance and restoring public trust.
The new penalties will sit alongside and complement the existing enforcement options, including prosecution and unlimited penalties to the criminal standard of proof, that will continue to be used to enforce more serious offences.
We encourage everyone with an interest in the performance of the water sector to share their views and help shape the future of enforcement.
[HCWS976]
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill
Emma Hardy ExcerptsThursday 16th October 2025
(2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill 2024-26 View all Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill is a landmark piece of legislation that will implement obligations in the United Nations BBNJ agreement in UK law and enable us to move towards ratification of this historic agreement. I am sure the Bill will be welcomed by Members in all parts of the House. I recognise the contribution of Members, particularly those on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the Environmental Audit Committee and the all-party parliamentary group for the ocean, who have kept oceans high on the parliamentary agenda. In all fairness, I pay tribute to the previous Government, who did a lot of work on the Bill.
I am personally proud that we are turning words into action. In April 2024, I was the shadow Minister on a debate on this topic, and I made the commitment that if Labour were lucky enough to win the election, we would ratify this treaty, so I am very pleased to be able to say that we are going to. People in civil society, academia and industry will be delighted to see the introduction of the Bill. Organisations such as the National Oceanography Centre and the Natural History Museum have provided invaluable support to the UK delegation. I also thank the High Seas Alliance and the World Wide Fund for Nature, as well as many other environmental non-governmental organisations, for their unwavering commitment.
The BBNJ agreement is the result of years of dialogue and negotiation involving stakeholders from all around the world. In fact, I heard just this morning that negotiations started in 2012, so it has taken quite a while to get to this point. The UK’s role in these negotiations was informed by the expertise and passion of marine scientists, legal scholars and environmental advocates, and I thank them all for their contributions.
The BBNJ agreement has achieved the 60 ratifications required for its entry into force, which will happen on 17 January 2026. We expect the first meeting of the conference of the parties to take place later in 2026, and the UK can attend that meeting as a party only if it has ratified the agreement at least 30 days previously.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Minister is absolutely right to say that there is support across the House for this really important Bill. She is right also to pay tribute to the previous Government for some of the work they have done, but it is true to say that, despite the fact that in the last Parliament there were many times when this Parliament did not have a great deal to debate, we never actually got this on the statute book. Just over one year into this Government, when there is a tremendous amount of legislation, we have managed to find the time to get this through. I pay tribute to the Minister. I think it is worth taking that bit of credit because we are doing something that has not previously been done.
Emma Hardy
I cannot disagree with my hon. Friend on that, can I? I thank him for his comments. As I said, it means a lot to me to be able to stand here today and say that I have fulfilled in government the commitment that I made in opposition.
We need to pass the Bill and the associated secondary legislation before we can take the next steps to ratification, so it is about not just the passage of this Bill but the statutory instruments that will follow it. I know that all sides of the House will want to see the UK playing a leading role in future discussions at the conference of the parties, and that is why we must maintain momentum.
The Bill marks a significant step in the UK’s commitment to protecting the two thirds of the world’s ocean that lie beyond the jurisdiction of a single nation. From one of the heaviest fish, the sunfish, to the delicate sea butterfly, this vast expanse of ocean is home to extraordinary biodiversity and ecosystems that are vital to the health of our planet. It sustains fisheries that feed billions, and it underpins weather patterns, coastal protections and the livelihoods of people across the globe, but these areas of the ocean are vulnerable to exploitation, degradation and irreversible harm.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I agree with the Minister that her engagement with various stakeholders—environmental NGOs, academics and universities—is crucial. I also acknowledge the parts of the Bill that underline the role of devolved Administrations and the important work that has to be done. Will her officials work closely with the devolved Administrations on the international impact of the Bill and that that will continue throughout this legislation?
Emma Hardy
I can offer the hon. Gentleman that reassurance. That is an important point well made.
The BBNJ marks an historic breakthrough. It is a multilateral treaty adopted under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea that is designed to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The agreement delivers on four critical fronts. First, it established new obligations to share the benefits arising from research into and the use of marine genetic resources from these ocean areas. Secondly, it created a mechanism to establish area-based management tools, including marine protected areas, which was an essential step to safeguard fragile ecosystems.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
It is great that the UK is finally ratifying the treaty, and it is also great to hear the Minister talk about the benefits of marine protected areas, but if the Bill is to signify a new and invigorated Government focus on protecting our precious marine environment, does she not agree that the terrible, destructive fishing practice of bottom trawling obliterates vital habitats on our seabed? It makes a mockery of the entire term “marine protected area” that the UK Government have ignored the Environmental Audit Committee’s advice to ban bottom trawling from our own marine protected areas.
Emma Hardy
Of course, domestic marine protected areas are not within the remit of the Bill because we are talking about areas beyond national jurisdiction. What I can say is that the UK Government have introduced a consultation looking at banning bottom trawling in 41 of our marine protected areas. That consultation is out now. We are showing our commitment to oceans on not only an international scale but a national scale.
Thirdly, the agreement strengthens the framework for environmental impact assessments by building on the provisions of the UN convention on the law of the sea to ensure that new activities in these areas are sustainable and responsible.
Fourthly, it reinforces capacity building for developing states and promotes broader technological transfer. The journey to the agreement started with an ad hoc informal working group in 2006, before it progressed to a preparatory commission that worked through 2016 and 2017 and culminated in a formal inter-Government conference that negotiated the text between 2018 and 2023.
The UK has already played a leading role in shaping the agreement over the course of more than a decade of negotiations. In September 2023, we were one of the first countries to sign the agreement when it opened for signature at the UN, and today, through the Bill, the UK takes a major step towards ratification.
I will now outline the structure of the Bill, which is divided into five parts. Parts 2, 3 and 4 are designed to correspond and give effect to the three core sections of the BBNJ agreement relating to marine genetic resources, area-based management tools and environmental impact assessments.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill and for her deep interest in this subject. We are all very impressed by what the Minister does and we thank her for it. Further to intervention of the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins)—he and I both represent coastal communities—I would like to say that marine biodiversity is the lifeblood of the fishing industry and that, as we have often said, fishermen are the greatest natural caretakers of the sea. Does the Minister agree that the input and the generational knowledge of the fishing sector is essential as we move forward?
Emma Hardy
I pay tribute to all the fishermen throughout the United Kingdom who play such a vital role in helping to feed our nation.
The Bill also ensures that the UK has the necessary powers to implement decisions adopted at future meetings of the BBNJ conference of the parties, beginning with the marine genetic resource provision. Part 2 of the Bill sets out the requirements related to the collection and use of marine genetic resources from areas beyond national jurisdiction and digital sequence information generated on those marine genetic resources.
These measures mean that UK researchers conducting collection activities from UK craft or equipment, such as royal research ships or autonomous systems, will need to notify a national focal point within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office before and after the collection of these resources. Additionally, any users of marine genetic resources or digital sequence information will need to notify the national focal point once results of utilisation are available and make those results available in publicly accessible repositories or databases. The results of utilisation, including publications such as journal articles and patents granted, should detail the outcome of research and development on these resources. These notifications will provide valuable data on material collected and on the results of research in areas beyond national jurisdiction. These notifications will be passed on to a clearing-house mechanism—a core part of the future architecture of the BBNJ agreement.
The clearing-house mechanism will act as a global online notification hub, where parties to the agreement will submit their notifications, allowing researchers from the UK and elsewhere to see what is being collected from where and how it is being used. That function is key to the benefit-sharing mechanisms under the agreement, enabling researchers from developing countries to work from the same scientific data as a researcher in the UK. That will also facilitate the development of cross-national research groups crucial to supporting breakthrough scientific discoveries.
The measures in the Bill also require repositories and institutions holding marine genetic resources to provide access to samples under reasonable conditions. That will apply to bodies like the Natural History Museum, the National Oceanography Centre and UK universities. Similarly, UK databases containing digital sequence information from marine genetic resources will need to ensure public access. Marine genetic resources may hold the key to future medicines, enzymes and sustainable technologies. This is a fast-growing global sector, and our universities and biotech firms are world leaders. Taken together, the measures will allow our researchers and companies to remain at the cutting edge of marine genetic discovery, benefiting from and contributing to global research in this space.
Part 3 of the Bill provides powers to allow the UK to implement internationally agreed measures in relation to marine protected areas and other area-based management tools established in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Any such measures will be agreed in meetings of the conference of the parties and will aim to manage activities in geographically defined areas of the ocean to achieve conservation and sustainable use objectives. Part 3 also ensures that the UK can implement any emergency measures adopted by the conference of the parties to respond to any natural or man-made disasters in areas beyond national jurisdiction that may require, for example, restrictions on navigation of UK ships or discharges from UK crafts.
Part 4 updates domestic marine licensing legislation to meet the environmental impact assessment requirements set out in the agreement. These changes apply to licensable marine activities that take place in areas beyond national jurisdiction. It provides the power needed to adapt the UK’s domestic marine licensing and related environmental assessment system as new international standards and guidelines are agreed by the BBNJ conference of the parties. For example, that may include applying the latest standards for environmental assessments or for the ongoing monitoring of impacts. In short, it will future-proof the UK’s marine licensing legislation, ensuring that we can keep pace with emerging technologies and activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
In addition to the Bill, secondary legislation is required before the UK can formally ratify the BBNJ agreement. We will need to make changes to domestic legislation to implement the BBNJ agreement provisions relating to environmental impact assessments and to define digital sequence information. Those issues require engagement with stakeholders, and statutory instruments will be laid before Parliament after the Bill receives Royal Assent. Once the secondary legislation is in force, a standard six-week process will allow us to finalise the instrument of ratification, which includes signature and formal submission to the United Nations.
The provisions in the Bill may appear to be narrow and technical, but once implemented, they will enable the UK to participate fully in global efforts to conserve and sustainably use the ocean beyond national jurisdiction. Working with our international partners, the BBNJ agreement will allow us to safeguard fragile ecosystems, protect endangered species and ensure that scientific benefits are shared fairly and responsibly.
The Bill is rooted in this Government’s broader environmental and international goals. We are protecting and improving the marine environment at home and internationally to meet the global commitment to protect 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030, and this Bill is a key instrument in delivering that goal. The Bill supports our efforts to maintain multilateral agreements and international governance as the bedrock of our global community, and to address collectively the biggest issues of our generation: climate change, food insecurity and harm to marine environments—issues that affect not just the UK, but every nation on Earth. I hope that Members will recognise the urgency and importance of this moment. The ocean cannot wait, and the consequences of inaction are profound. This Bill is an opportunity to act, to protect marine life, to support sustainable development and to ensure that the benefits of the ocean are shared fairly and responsibly. I commend this Bill to the House.
Andrew Rosindell
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Some of us do care about our British overseas territories and the marine environment. Some of us have made these arguments for many, many years, as have many on the Government Benches. If we are to take this issue seriously, we need to take our responsibilities seriously. Otherwise, future generations, not just in this country but across the world, will look back at this debate and what we are doing today, and think, “What on earth were they doing, giving away such a vital part of the planet that we are responsible for?”
Either the Government truly believe that Mauritius will reverse course and persuade China to respect this marine protected area, or, as I am afraid the Chagos surrender treaty implies, we shall end up doing the heavy lifting while paying for the privilege. Forgive me for not being entirely convinced, but I do not believe that the statistics I have cited are those of a nation ready to take on responsibility for one of the world’s most delicate marine ecosystems.
Scientific assessments show that live coral cover in Mauritian waters fell by up to 70% in the late 1990s, while coastal erosion and reef degradation continue unchecked. A United Nations review in 2022 found that, while on paper Mauritius has environmental laws, enforcement is inconsistent, community involvement is limited and responses to emerging threats such as ocean acidification remain inadequate. Unbelievably, seagrass beds, which are vital for carbon storage and marine biodiversity, are still cleared to make way for tourism development. Is this really the environmental guardian that Ministers are entrusting with 640,000 sq km of some of the most pristine ocean on earth? It beggars belief.
We need to look around the world to see what happens when Chinese fishing interests move in. In Ecuador, thousands of octopuses and sharks have been left dead on the shore because of illegal fishing by Chinese vessels. We need to guard against that in future. Off the coast of Ghana, fishermen’s catches have fallen by 40% due to Chinese bottom trawlers decimating local fish stocks. Around the Korean peninsula, squid populations have collapsed by 70%. I hope that this legislation and this agreement will help to protect the oceans around the world and countries where there are no protections at the moment. If the Chagos islands are handed over, the same fleets will soon appear in some of those waters, and Chagos will be at the mercy of exploitation.
That is the context in which the House is considering the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill. It runs to 26 clauses, as the Minister has said. It is impossible to run through them all today, but no doubt we will look at them in greater detail in Committee. There are, however, several points that must be addressed in today’s debate.
When will ratification happen? Clause 25 provides for the commencement of regulation, but without any statutory deadline or parliamentary trigger, leaving ratification entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State. To add to that, clauses 9 and 11 grant far-reaching powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations to amend existing Acts of Parliament by secondary legislation. Where is Parliament’s role in that? How will the House scrutinise decisions taken by the conference of the parties under the agreement? Will we be consulted before international rules are imposed on British institutions and industries? Will British waters or those of our overseas territories ever fall under the jurisdiction of a foreign or supranational regulator? We surely cannot allow global bureaucracy to override British parliamentary sovereignty.
Beyond the question of control lies the spectre of bureaucracy. Clauses 2 and 3 impose heavy reporting duties on marine research and genetic sampling. Clause 16 allows still more procedures by regulation. Has the Department assessed what that will cost in time and money for our scientists and shipping operators and for legitimate researchers? How will small British enterprises compete if they face mountains of paperwork, while less scrupulous nations exploit the same waters freely? We all support high standards, but in the world we currently live in, we cannot afford to lose innovation or competitiveness.
Then there is the matter of expense. The impact assessment admits that compliance, licensing and enforcement will not be cheap, yet provides little detail on who pays. At a time of fiscal restraint, when every Department must justify every pound spent, can the Minister explain whether this legislation will truly be the best use of taxpayers’ money? How much will it cost to implement the BBNJ regime in full? Will the task of monitoring fall to the Royal Navy or the Marine Management Organisation, and what extra resources will they receive to do the job? What is the cost-benefit ratio, and have the Government assessed whether there could be indirect impacts on the taxpayer?
What of the impact on British industries, fishermen, offshore energy and biotechnology? Can the Minister assure us that British fishermen will not face restrictions, that our energy sector will not be burdened by impractical licensing demands, and that our biotech pioneers will not find their discoveries trapped in international bureaucracy?
Emma Hardy
I wonder if I could offer some helpful clarity. This debate is on BBNJ—biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction, with the word “beyond” giving a clue to the fact that it does not relate to British waters. The points the hon. Gentleman is raising, about what impact the high seas will have on offshore wind development here, might therefore not be entirely valid, and his points about the impact on British fishermen fishing in UK waters might not be covered by the global ocean treaty. I wonder if it might be helpful for him to read the explanatory notes alongside the Bill.
Andrew Rosindell
The Minister will have plenty of time to explain all these matters in detail in Committee. This is Second Reading, when we raise issues of concern. I look forward to Committee, and to all my questions being answered at that stage, if not today. I thank her for her intervention.
What safeguards will protect British intellectual property in marine genetic research? Will the benefit-sharing provisions prevent our scientists from developing the fruits of their own work? Will other nations shoulder equal obligations, or will Britain be left carrying the cost because we are doing the right thing and others are not? Our research institutions are some of the most prestigious global leaders in the marine sector, whether it is the Natural History Museum, the National Oceanography Centre or our magnificent universities. First and foremost, there must be a guarantee from the Government that this Bill will not drown them in red tape.
Clause 20 rightly extends the Bill’s provisions to the British overseas territories, which are central to our environmental success story. From the Pitcairn islands, with their 35 residents, to Tristan da Cunha, home to barely 240 residents, these far-flung Britons have shown what small communities can achieve for global conservation when they have British support. But how can they have confidence in the Government’s assurances when they witness what is happening in Chagos? If Ministers are willing to trade away one British territory without consultation or consent, what message does that send to the rest? I remind the House that conservation with the loss of sovereignty and without credible means of enforcement is a hollow virtue. The United Kingdom has a record to be proud of, from Captain Cook to David Attenborough. We must build on that record and not undermine it with rushed ratification.
If Ministers will answer the questions that I have laid out, and if they will commit in statute to parliamentary oversight, a fully costed implementation plan, explicit safeguards for British science and intellectual property, and legally enforceable protections for the overseas territories, many on the Conservative Benches will consider how to support measures that genuinely conserve our seas. If they will not, I and others—
Flood and Coastal Erosion Resilience and Investment
Emma Hardy Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I wish to update the House on actions we are taking to strengthen resilience to flood and coastal risks in England, including investment and reforms to the Government’s flood investment policy.
Over the last year, this Government have made significant progress by committing record investment in flood and coastal erosion defences; introducing the most significant change in flood and coastal erosion funding policy for nearly 15 years; and building partnerships to improve flood preparedness and resilience.
The Environment Agency’s annual Flood Action Week is running this week (13 to 19 October 2025). The objective is to build public awareness of all sources of flood risk and promote action to increase community and property flood resilience. I ask all parliamentarians to actively promote flood preparedness and encourage their constituents to join the 1.6 million users who have already signed up to receive Environment Agency flood warnings via gov.uk. This will ensure that they receive timely alerts to help them decide how to act. Taking action to prepare and knowing what to do in a flood can significantly reduce the short-term and long-term impacts.
There will be a range of events during Flood Action Week. Yesterday the Environmental Audit Committee published its report focusing on how flood resilience can be strengthened in response to increasing risks. The Government will consider its report and recommendations and will reply in due course. Also yesterday, the Secretary of State attended the Flood Re reception launching the new FloodMobile, ahead of its tour across the country this week to help communities understand their flood risk and how to prepare. Today I am attending the Environment Agency’s reception, where parliamentarians can discuss the new flood awareness toolkit. This sets out who to contact in a flood and the actions to take to support communities before, during and after a flood. Parliamentarians will also be able to meet with their Environment Agency area director to learn about work being undertaken in their constituency to manage flood risk.
Economic growth is the No. 1 mission in the Government’s plan for change. Increasing resilience to flooding and coastal erosion plays an important role in delivering this by protecting communities and farmland from billions of pounds of damages.
Despite a challenging fiscal context, we are making a record £10.5 billion investment, and delivering the largest flood and coastal investment programme in history. Communities across every region of England are benefiting from greater resilience. This includes:
investing £2.65 billion between 2024-25 and 2025-26, to build and maintain flood and coastal defences;
as part of that, redirecting £108 million into urgent flood and coastal defence maintenance to halt the decline of flood asset condition following years of under investment;
and committing a record £7.9 billion in capital funding between 2026 and 2036 to build and maintain flood and coastal defences, as part of the Government’s 10-year infrastructure strategy.
This investment is making a difference now, ahead of the winter. Since July last year, the Environment Agency has delivered 151 flood defence schemes, better protecting over 24,000 homes and businesses. It is poised to deliver more, across all of England, benefiting thousands of homes, supporting economic growth and unlocking new land for development.
We need to use our record investment programme as effectively and efficiently as possible. Today, the Government are therefore announcing major reforms to the flood funding policy, following a public consultation over the summer. The reforms will make it quicker and easier to deliver the right defences in the right places by simplifying flood funding rules. The new approach is more agile, allowing the Environment Agency to respond to both current and future flood risk through its investment.
The new rules will apply from the start of the new flood and coastal investment programme in April 2026. The new rules provide more assurance on the level of funding flood and coastal schemes will receive, increasing investor confidence, closing funding gaps and reducing the administrative burden on local communities. New flood and coastal defence schemes will be eligible for the first £3 million of costs, and 90% of costs above this amount. We will encourage public, private, and charitable contributions, making every pound of Government investment go further.
We need to address the condition of flood and coast defence assets, reversing their declining condition. The funding rules will optimise funding between new flood projects and maintaining existing defence assets. An integrated set of outcome metrics will support allocation of funding towards the most beneficial interventions. Furthermore, we will make capital refurbishment of existing flood defences eligible for full funding. We will put the Environment Agency and other risk management authorities on an equal footing for accessing funding.
The funding rules will ensure best value for taxpayers’ money. All flood and coastal defences, new, improved, and refurbished, will be prioritised based on value for money and delivery of the Government’s new strategic flood and coastal erosion investment objectives. These include guaranteeing that deprived communities receive investment, unlocking additional partnership contributions, and increasing the use of natural flood management. This includes a commitment to invest over £300 million in natural flood management between 2026 and ’36.
Alongside this, we are supporting increased use of property flood resilience, equipping property owners with the knowledge to take practical action that can help reduce damage from flooding. This week sees the launch of Professor Peter Bonfield’s property flood resilience review, Flood Ready, an action plan to build the resilience of people and properties. The actions partners have committed to taking will increase confidence in property flood resilience measures and help to grow the market. The Government welcome this important review and its recommendations.
Internal drainage boards deliver essential work to manage water levels, reduce flood risk and enhance biodiversity, predominantly in rural areas. The Government are supporting them, including through their internal drainage board fund. In the past year, we provided an additional £16 million, bringing total funding to £91 million, the largest ever one-off funding for internal drainage boards. This investment is helping to modernise and upgrade assets, providing benefits to over 400,000 hectares of farmland and over 200,000 properties to date, while reducing annual charges for farmers and local authorities.
It is only through partnership that we can tackle challenges such as flood and coastal risk, which are on the frontline of experiencing the impacts of climate change. As set out in the manifesto, the Government set up their floods resilience taskforce to provide oversight of national and local flood resilience and improve preparedness, especially ahead of the autumn and winter flood season. The taskforce brings together experts and decision makers from across national Government, including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Cabinet Office, the Environment Agency, the Met Office and the Flood Forecasting Centre. Other taskforce members include representatives from local and regional government, including lead local flood authorities, local resilience forums, and English regional mayors. The National Fire Chiefs Council and National Police Chiefs Council, and representatives from industry, civil society, and the devolved Governments are also members.
In the last year, taskforce members assessed the national and local response to autumn and winter flooding, following 2024 being one of the wettest years on record and including five named winter storms. They also improved national flood modelling, simplified the system of weather and flood related warnings, exercised national coordination arrangements, and raised awareness of flood recovery schemes.
The Flood Forecasting Centre helped deliver significant improvements to the flood forecasting service, including by giving rapid updates on flood risks from surface water, which helped first responders in their decision-making to protect lives. My thanks to the Met Office and Environment Agency for their excellent work.
I am grateful to the Cabinet Office, which developed the risk vulnerability tool in partnership with the Office for National Statistics, as well as national guidance for local resilience forums on identifying and supporting persons who are vulnerable in an emergency. These will both help to improve flood resilience.
Taskforce members established three member-led action groups, on flood warnings, flood recovery, and flood insurance, building long-term momentum on these critical issues. They assisted partners in understanding the changing risk picture in the new national flood risk assessment, and made corresponding improvements to flood forecasting capabilities, making us all safer.
The personal impact of flooding is immeasurable. Insurance plays a key role in enabling recovery. Flood Re has provided cover for over 340,000 household policies over the past year, meaning 650,000 properties have benefited since the scheme’s launch, and 99% of householders at high risk of flooding can obtain quotes from 10 or more insurers because of the scheme. This week, I met industry partners for a second flood insurance roundtable. We focused on how the sector can better support households at flood risk, examining access to affordable insurance, future challenges, and practical steps to promote property resilience while maintaining mortgage availability.
[HCWS956]
Oral Answers to Questions
Emma Hardy Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
We have introduced a new era of accountability. We are resetting, reforming and revolutionising the water sector, putting public health and the environment first and delivering the change rightly demanded by the British people. With the most ambitious targets on sewage water pollution in history, we will halve sewage water pollution by 2030.
Patrick Hurley
Over the summer, we saw the announcement of a £50 million investment into Southport’s waste water treatment works to reduce the number of sewage overflows to just three per bathing season, allowing Southport to once again become the jewel in the crown of the north-west coast. Does the Minister agree that that level of investment is very much needed after more than a decade of Tory neglect of our waterways, and that it shows the difference a town can see when it has a Labour MP, a Labour council, a Labour metro mayor and a Labour Government here in Westminster?
Emma Hardy
Unsurprisingly, I could not agree more. I thank my hon. Friend for his work to champion his community here in Parliament. The previous Government oversaw record levels of sewage pollution in our rivers, lakes and seas, but this Government have secured £104 billion of private investment to upgrade crumbling pipes and halve sewage pollution by 2030, so that communities can once again take pride in their rivers, lakes and seas.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
As I have reminded Ministers on a number of occasions, tackling pollution in our rivers and seas requires us to address agricultural pollution as well as sewage pollution. I am disappointed not to hear the Minister mention that, but I like to come with solutions. I recently visited the Wyescapes landscape recovery project in my constituency, which is an innovative farmer-led project of 49 farmers protecting soil, reducing pollution, restoring nature and producing great-quality food. Will the Minister, or perhaps her colleague the Farming Minister, come to visit this innovative project to see how we can tackle river pollution and protect nature and food production?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Lady raises a really important point. Agricultural pollution is incredibly serious, and this Government recognise that. We have updated the DEFRA statutory guidance for the farming rules for water, and I recently hosted a roundtable with farmers, environmental organisations and the water industry to bring the voices of stakeholders to the fore. We have committed to including a new regional element in the new regulator to ensure greater involvement in water planning. By moving to a catchment-based model for water systems planning, we can tackle all sources of pollution entering the waterways, including agricultural pollution.
I have a very keen interest in the River Wye; I went to see it last year, and it is absolutely beautiful. The hon. Lady will be well aware of the research project with £1 million of funding that we announced to look into all sources of pollution and what we can do to clean up this beautiful place in our country.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
I welcome the fact that the rolling reporting of dry-day spills has become mandatory under our Government, but it has unfortunately laid bare the track record of South West Water, which is among the worst offenders on dry-day spills. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that companies such as South West Water feel the full force of the law with regard to dry-day spills?
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to be angry about the state in which our rivers, lakes and seas have been left, and I recognise the trouble that a failing water company causes for his constituency. That is why we have committed to resetting, reforming and revolutionising the water sector and why we are establishing a new, single and powerful regulator that can fully hold all companies to account and ensure that they are delivering for the British people and cleaning up our waterways for good.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Run-off from chicken manure is a particular problem in the bathing waters and rivers in Shropshire. I have visited both Harper Adams University and LOHAS Fertiliser in my constituency, which have great new technologies to deal with chicken manure, stabilise it and moving that great fertiliser to other parts of the country where it causes fewer problems. However, they cannot scale up, so what steps is the Minister taking to enable the new technologies that could deal with some of these problems to be scaled up and used across the country?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Lady raises a really interesting point—it is perhaps worrying how interested I am getting in what we can do with manure and human waste to provide organic fertiliser in our country. She has given a brilliant example of what can be done, and I will make sure that the Minister who is responsible for the circular economy, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), gets to hear about it and learn more.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
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.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Emma Hardy
I commend my hon. Friend for his successful championing of this issue on behalf of his constituents. I know how much it means to his community to have such boats removed. It is an important issue, and I am more than happy to follow up with the Canal & River Trust in order to understand if it needs any additional tools to continue and complete this work around the country.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
River Basin Management Plans: Next Steps
Emma Hardy Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
The water industry is failing. Our rivers, lakes and seas are polluted with record levels of sewage. Water pipes have been left to crumble into disrepair. We share customers’ fury at rising bills. The lack of water infrastructure is blocking economic growth and a broken regulatory system has failed customers and failed the environment.
This Government are committed to delivering the bold and necessary reforms needed to fix our water sector. Our priority is to restore our rivers, lakes and seas to good ecological health, and to put in place a planning framework that works for the environment, the public, and future generations. This Government was elected to clean up water pollution and ensure unacceptable water bill hikes can never happen again. The report of the Independent Water Commission published yesterday proposes how to do this, and the Government will set out our response in the next parliamentary Session.
In May, I confirmed that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will work together with the Environment Agency on how to deliver improved river basin management planning consistently with the Court of Appeal’s conclusions in Pickering Fishery Association v. Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and committed to setting out more information in due course.
I can now set out the next phase of work to take steps consistent with the Court of Appeal judgment and provide a strong foundation for long-term reform. I am pleased to announce that DEFRA and the Environment Agency are working closely towards updating programmes of measures consistent with the judgment. The Environment Agency has already begun work to review and improve a water body level programme of measures across the country to support nationwide action to improve water quality.
To support this work, DEFRA and the Environment Agency also intend to develop a targeted, “ground up” approach to reviewing and identifying new programmes of measures in a small number of catchments. The EA plans to work with local stakeholders with knowledge of the local issues affecting their catchments and test new approaches in identifying the actions needed to improve water quality.
This represents a first step in developing an approach towards improving planning for the water environment, and will help identify where further action or reform may be required.
These steps reflect the Government’s commitment to taking forward action to improve water quality, while work proceeds on broader regulatory reforms to implement the recommendations of the Independent Water Commission.
[HCWS886]
Water Resources Infrastructure: National Policy Statement
Emma Hardy Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
In line with the Government’s ambition to update relevant national policy statements within their first year, today I intend to lay an update by way of non-material amendments to the national policy statement for water resources infrastructure.
Growth is one of the Prime Minister’s five defining missions of this Government.
This update will support growth by making planning decisions for water resources infrastructure quicker and easier.
This will provide certainty to the water industry and support the delivery of nine new reservoirs and the Government’s plans to get Britain building 1.5 million new homes by the end of this Parliament.
Water resources management plans determine what additional water resources infrastructure is needed for at least the next 25 years and are comprehensively revised every five years. The plans are publicly consulted on and the options within them are scrutinised by regulators before being approved by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
The updated national policy statement provides a clearer link to final water resources management plans, as part of the water resources statutory framework, so that the “need” for any project within these approved plans will not need to be reassessed at the examination stage of a development consent order application.
This national policy statement also makes clear the Government’s commitment to the water and development sectors, and that water resources projects are critical to growth.
[HCWS792]