River Thames: Unauthorised Mooring

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Chadwick]

The Minister will have heard the points we have made about the lack of supervisory authorities. Will she write to the Welsh Minister responsible and ask him to look into the case of the Brecon canal?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is very quick on his feet. I call the Minister.

Flood Preparedness: Carlisle

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend for his thoughtful contribution as always and for his interest in this area. The management of locks and weirs probably does not come into the scope of the flooding formula review, but I have heard the point he is making, and I will talk to officials about whether the management of locks is taken into account with flood plans and how that is managed consistently around the country. I will write back to him on that, if that would be useful.

The Government’s record two-year investment in our flood defences will better protect communities across the country from flooding. It will also boost economic growth in local communities by protecting businesses, delivering new jobs and supporting a stable economy in the face of the increasing risk of flooding as a result of climate change.

Through our plan for change, this Government will deliver a decade of national renewal and economic growth, and we are committed to ensuring that communities are better protected from flooding in the first place. We will continue to deliver and repair flood defences, improve drainage systems and develop natural flood management schemes. As ever, the emergency services, the Environment Agency, local authorities, voluntary organisations and Government Departments stand ready to support affected people in any future flooding event, and I pay tribute to them all. It is a personal priority and a privilege to be the Minister responsible for flooding, and I will continue working to ensure that this country is more resilient to floods.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

As the Member for Carlisle mentioned her mother’s 91st birthday, it is only appropriate that I wish Freda Minns—what a beautiful name—a very happy birthday.

Question put and agreed to.

Sewage

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I inform the House that the Speaker has selected amendment (a) tabled in the name of the Prime Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making a typically good speech. Does he agree that water from areas where one cannot swim still ends up in areas where one can? The Roden and Perry rivers in my constituency suffered over 2,000 hours of sewage spills in the past year—the Perry is affected by a spill into the Common brook near Oswestry. Not only does that water go past farmers’ fields, but it ends up in Shrewsbury, where there is a designated swimming area. I want to swim in it. Does he agree that the blue flag status would clear up the whole catchment, not just the places where people go swimming?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before you get back to your feet, Mr Farron, I remind you that you can speak as long as you want, but the longer you speak, the less likely it is that colleagues will be able to contribute.

[Tim Farron]

I appreciate your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will allow maybe only two more interventions. I am coming towards the end of my remarks. I am trying to be not selfish but generous by getting the balance right. I do not want to squeeze people out altogether.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Wrigley]

I thank the Secretary of State. I have just been reading about his core reforms, and I note that, as he has said, core reform 3 changes the way in which the season for bathing is determined. However, it continues the principle that water is not tested by the Environment Agency throughout the year. This is an important omission that must be rectified. During a bathing season, the water can become polluted. Will the Secretary of State consider introducing all-year-round testing for our Blue Flag areas?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, I would like him to consider the fact that more than 30 colleagues wish to contribute. The longer he speaks, the less likely it is that they will all get in.

[Steve Reed]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will not take any more interventions. I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point. Public health is a priority in the reforms that we are making.

The Environment Agency must consider public safety and the environment when it assesses applications for bathing waters, and remove the harmful automatic designation of bathing waters so that we can continue to invest in and improve these sites. Applications for new bathing waters will open next month, adding to the more than 450 bathing waters around the country. Details of how to apply are online.

The sewage scandal ends with this Labour Government. Our groundbreaking Water (Special Measures) Act will give the regulators tough new powers to hold water companies to account. They will no longer get away with polluting our waterways and rewarding themselves with undeserved bonuses for what they have done. This is a fresh start for the water sector—a fundamental reset that will clean up our waterways, create thousands of jobs, grow the economy and give us a reliable water supply for decades to come.

Exciting progress is already being made. The Thames tideway tunnel was fully activated in February—an amazing feat of British engineering and entrepreneurial spirt that will reduce sewage spills into the Thames by around 95%. Since coming into operation, the tunnel has captured enough sewage to fill Wembley stadium five times over and stopped it pouring into the river. I want to see innovation like that not just in London but right across the country, bringing investment, driving regional economic growth and cleaning up our waterways for good.

Many of us cherish memories from childhood of summer holidays on the beach, exploring rock pools or splashing about in the waves. Today’s children deserve to make the same magical memories. This is our moment to give our children back the future that is their birthright, to restore pride in our rivers, lakes and seas, to end the sewage scandal and to clean up our waterways for good. That is the prize, and this is the Government who will make it happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Because the Front-Bench contributions have been so substantial, Back Benchers will now be on a time limit of three minutes. I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Water Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 28th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Clive Lewis]

No, I am going to carry on and make some progress. You made your point. Let the public—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Mr Lewis, I do not believe I was making a point at all.

[Clive Lewis]

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; I should have said that my hon. Friend made his point.

The clock is ticking. The climate crisis is no longer a distant warning. It is our lived reality. Rising droughts, creeping desertification, depleted aquifers, wildfires, systemic collapse—these are no longer projections; they are the forecast turned fact. Preparing for this future and adapting to what is now inevitable has never been more urgent.

The evidence is sobering. The UK’s water resources are under mounting pressure and not just from the climate emergency, but from rising demand and population growth. Experts now project that England could face significant water supply deficits as early as 2034 unless we act decisively. That is not a distant horizon; it is a little over a decade away.

But while the threat has grown, our resilience has shrunk, because while the climate crisis has intensified, our water infrastructure has stood still, or, worse, been sold off, hollowed out and left to rot. In the 35 years before privatisation almost 100 reservoirs were built; in the 35 years since privatisation, not one major English reservoir has been built. But it gets worse, because in that same period private water companies have sold off 25 reservoirs without replacing one. Instead of investing in resilience, they have extracted value: £72 billion paid out in dividends while pipes leak, rivers choke, and the public pays the price. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) asks how we can afford it; how can we not afford it? That is not mismanagement; it is a betrayal. If scientists tell us the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity and to this country—

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Lewis]

Those are the reasons why I have brought forward this Bill. The Government’s Act does none of those things, but my Bill does. Take just one example—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I believe Mr Lewis probably cannot hear interventions, because he is so loud himself. Members should intervene loudly if they wish to intervene.

[Clive Lewis]

I did hear the intervention, but I wanted to make some progress.

Take this one example. Under this Bill, if a water company breaches the terms of its licence with a major sewage discharge, it can forget shareholder payout and piling on more debt. If it does it twice, it is in the last chance saloon. After three strikes, it is out—licence terminated and on its bike—and those price-gouging, asset-stripping, river-killing vulture capitalist outfits will be rolled into the sunset without a penny in compensation. What about those water infrastructure assets that they have been sweating for private gain? They go back into the public realm, thank you very much. If they start whining about debts, do not worry: we will do a full audit of what they invested, what they racked up in debt, what they paid out in dividends and what they stuffed into bloated executive pay packets. I will tell you this, Madam Deputy Speaker: I am yet to see a single privatised English water company walk away with anything other than a well-earned spanking and a sharp haircut for its creditors. Those assets will belong to the public once again, and we will not pay a penny more than they are worth.

I can hear people thinking, “Where will the money come from? How will you invest in publicly owned water without the private sector?” I will tell them where it has not come from in these past 35 years—I am mind-reading again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before I call the next Member, I trust that the microphones have been adjusted to their normal level.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The hon. Gentleman knows that it is entirely up to the Member who is speaking to decide whether they wish to take or reject an intervention, just as it is up to Members attempting to make an intervention to either persist in the attempt or not. We will let the debate continue, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is plenty of time.

[Carla Denyer]

The provision of water—

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Lewis]

People talk about whether something can be taken out of public control and put back into privatisation. Of course, Parliament is sovereign and that can always happen, but there is a point about giving control to the public. Let us take the NHS, which is a public service. Any Government in the post-war period could have taken the NHS back into privatisation. Why did they not do so? They would not have dared, because it would have been so publicly damaging and politically destructive. That is what would happen with our water. Does the hon. Member agree? [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. May I remind people in the Public Gallery to remain silent?

[Carla Denyer]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful reminder about the analogy with the national health service.

Public ownership is not just essential for social and environmental justice; it is also, in this situation, a pragmatic necessity. It just makes sense, which is why almost everyone else does things that way. With water back in public hands, the Government could invest in fixing the crumbling infrastructure and cleaning up our rivers, or preventing them from getting into such a state in the first place, without haemorrhaging money to shareholders and allowing it to spill over—sorry; I couldn’t resist—into fat cats’ salaries.

People are struggling to put food on the table and heat their homes. We cannot allow water companies to contribute to that situation by hiking up the bills that everyone has to pay. Without real change, we will not stop sewage flowing into our rivers and profits flowing into the pockets of shareholders. There is an obvious answer that makes both people and the environment the winners: if they so choose, the Government could bring water companies back into public hands, to end the profiteering, drive down bills, protect our rivers, waterways and coastline, and catch up with the public who, as the hon. Member for Norwich South pointed out, are way ahead of the Labour Government on this issue and much else.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I remind the hon. Member that interventions should be short.

[Ellie Chowns]

I remind the House briefly that all these issues are well investigated and understood, and the House has previously used this mechanism effectively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Ferguson]

Members cannot intervene on an intervention.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Are you nearing your point?

[Mark Ferguson]

I am on the cusp of it. There are cost implications of asking members of the public to travel to another part of the country, and these things are inevitably in London. As somebody whose constituency is 250 miles from London, I would be concerned about members of my community being left out of such a consultation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before the hon. Lady responds to that intervention, I know it is Friday but you do not intervene on an intervention, and interventions are short. They are not speeches.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I think my hon. Friend makes some important points. We have seen from citizens’ juries, including in Ireland, which has a well-worn route for using these for their referenda, that people do drop out and do not always attend, because life gets in the way. That is why we are elected: to make hard decisions and defend difficult issues. We cannot make the world like the land of milk and honey—certainly not after the inheritance we received from the last Government after 14 years of mismanagement.

We have very big challenges and we need to tackle them. It would put heavy pressure on citizens’ juries to do that. The key point here is that, whatever the best practice, the Bill does not go into the detail of it, so we cannot assume that the good practice that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire has highlighted from her constituency is necessarily what would apply—let alone the challenges that other hon. Members have raised.

Turning to the hon. Member for Bristol Central, I would be surprised that a member of her party is so willing to pass responsibility over, but then I look at what happened in Brighton when the Greens controlled Brighton council. I will put aside the rubbish collection issue and the infighting and look at the issue with the i360—the tower that is now a tourist attraction. The company behind it went bust with over £50 million of debt. It was the Green-run council that provided £36 million of public money to pay for that vanity project, and in the end taxpayers in Brighton and Hove were left £51 million out of pocket and Brighton and Hove council were left to pay £2 million a year for the foreseeable future.

I do not think we need to take any lectures from the Green party about how to manage public money, because when they have been in power, they cannot do it. No wonder they want to pass responsibility over to a citizens’ jury rather than take responsibility themselves.

I have been diverted, but I think it was useful. Before I move on to my next point, I will take one more diversion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Lewis]

May I make a more general point? If the Bill went into Committee, we would look at this in far more detail, but a big part of the Bill is about a mission and our direction of travel. It is about tackling the crisis in democracy, and trusting our fellow citizens to give a point of view, with guidance from experts, so that we can make a decision. When the founders of the renaissance or capitalism sat down, did they know that the renaissance would happen, or that capitalism would end up like this? No. This is about heading in a certain direction and having some imagination—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Interventions should be short.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank the hon. Member for Norwich South for that helpful reply to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle). I am just doing my best to facilitate debate here, and I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will appreciate the congenial atmosphere that I am trying to create. I do not know whether it is working; please let me know later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

A lot of Members want to contribute today. I call James Frith.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

I hear the hon. Gentleman’s complaint, but I have been to Devon in my role before, and I will come to Devon again. I am always happy to meet farmers. I have spent quite a lot of time at this Dispatch Box answering questions from Conservative Members, so perhaps fewer questions will mean more time to go out and meet farmers.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Back in November, the farming Minister unbelievably said from the Government Dispatch Box that it was striking how many people were coming up to him at farming events and saying, “You’re right to be making these changes to APR and BPR.” Conservative Members have been out and about all over the country; indeed, I was in Staffordshire, Warwickshire and Shropshire yesterday, and I have not found one farmer who thinks that he is right. In fact, the level of anger and sheer disbelief among our farming community is immense as this Government’s attack on our farming cash flows continues through the dramatic reduction in delinked payments, the sudden stop of the sustainable farming incentive and the rise in employer’s national insurance contributions—I could go on. Business confidence is at an all-time low, so can the Minister provide the name of just one farmer he has spoken to who thinks he and his Government are right to be pursuing these changes?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I suggest that the shadow Minister goes out and speaks to a few more people, because I was stopped in a local village just this weekend and encouraged —[Interruption.] I am not going to name names, but he should check with some of his Conservative candidates in elections. They said, “Keep on going, you are doing the right thing.” The situation is not as the shadow Minister describes. He might do well to look at the figures for projected farm business incomes for this year, which show that in many sectors, those business incomes are doing rather well. That probably explains why people are not as exercised about it as him.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrats spokesperson.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Is the Minister aware that some of the farmers who will be worst hit by the APR changes are those who farm in severely disadvantaged areas in the uplands around our country, where typically property values are high and incomes are extremely low? When the change was made just last week with people being excluded from the sustainable farming incentive, 6,100 people had entered the SFI in this session, and only 40 of them were hill farmers. Is he also aware that his own Department’s figures show that at the end of the transition, the average hill farm income will be 55% of the national minimum wage? Does he not understand that his changes are bringing harm to the poorest farmers in the prettiest places, such as mine? Will he undertake to look at the Liberal Democrat proposal to bring in an uplands reward so that we do not plunge into poverty those people who care for our precious landscapes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The questions have to relate to Hartlepool’s flood defences. I call the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The people of Chesterfield have great empathy with the people of Hartlepool, as we face exactly the same issues. A new report by Public First shows that each year of flood events causes decade-long downward pressure on the economy worth up to £6 billion. I am grateful that the Minister will shortly visit us in Chesterfield to see flood projects and vulnerabilities, but does she agree that there is acute need for projects like the one we require on the River Hipper, and the one required in Hartlepool? It endangers the Government’s growth mission if we are not able to get these projects going.

[Emma Hardy]

I think we all have empathy with Hartlepool, so I encourage more people to ask questions on this issue. I look forward to visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency to find out more about the projects he mentions. He is quite right to say—this is an argument that I hope we will all pursue ahead of the spring statement—that tackling flooding is a good, value-for-money investment, because it helps to protect our economy and ensure that we can have growth.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I am grateful not only for the work that my hon. Friend’s action flood group does, but for the work that flood action groups do right across the whole of his constituency. He raises an incredibly important and interesting issue. In the Sir John Cunliffe review, we are fundamentally looking at the management of water right across entire catchment areas. When we think about water management, we need to consider not only whether communities have enough water to meet their needs, but whether they have protection from flooding and drought. A holistic way of dealing with some of the challenges we face is certainly one of the answers going forward. My hon. Friend has given a great example, and I would be happy to explore it further with him.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

The Conservative Government protected over 600,000 properties from flooding, introduced the £100 million frequently flooded allowance and committed to a £5.2 billion investment in flood protection. However, we know that the mental health impacts of flooding remain long after the waters subside. Rural communities face unique challenges, including outbreaks of diseases such as avian influenza and foot and mouth—a clear and worrying threat, given the recent cases in Germany and Hungary. Unfortunately, this Labour Government are exacerbating such stresses with their family farm tax and by scrapping the farming resilience fund, which supports mental health. Can the Minister confirm, for the sake of mental health, what support will be offered to rural communities in place of the scrapped fund?

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful for the question from my hon. Friend. We are absolutely determined to make the best of this opportunity, not least because the previous Government did not know how much we were actually buying. The Secretary of State has announced that we will monitor the food bought in the public sector, and that will inform our policy of making sure that British farmers make the most of the opportunity for public procurement.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The Secretary of State, in her speech to the Oxford farming conference, spoke about the plan for change, which was going to include a commitment to public sector procurement, but that was in January, and we are now in March. With the closure of the basic payment scheme and the ending of the sustainable farming incentive, farm incomes are under real cash pressure in the here and now, so when will we hear more detail about the very welcome commitments that the Secretary of State made at the Oxford farming conference in January?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Over the past 14 years, things only got filthier. This Government will turn the tide. Things will get cleaner thanks to the investment this Government are bringing in.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State back to the Chamber. He has been in hiding for a week. We were so worried about him that we were going to start a “Where’s Wally?” competition. The reason he has been in hiding is that he is ducking scrutiny of his dreadful decision to stop the sustainable farming incentive farm payment scheme immediately, without warning. Conservative Members have been inundated with messages from farmers saying that businesses will not survive this latest assault by the Government. How many farmers will be bankrupted as a result of the SFI stoppage?

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Secretary of State.

[Steve Reed]

We are fighting to have the honour of responding to the former Prime Minister! Of course I agree with him. Our focus on farm profitability is precisely so that family farms up and down the country can have a bright and secure future. Any sector that does not make a profit is not going to attract investment and will not have a future. We want farming to succeed in his constituency and in every constituency across the land.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

The work to improve our public services has to include the better use of technology. The Government are taking decisive action to enable law enforcement agencies and prosecuting authorities to harness innovative and cutting-edge technologies to reduce the court backlog, improve efficiency in the criminal justice system and lead to better outcomes for victims. I am pleased to say that the Government Legal Department is providing leadership in this area through its artificial intelligence centre of excellence, which offers expert support to colleagues across Government.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

With shameful vandalism of buildings in Eastbourne’s Gildredge park and the torching of park benches in Shinewater park reflected across the country, we clearly need more tools to tackle such crimes in Eastbourne and beyond. Technology is one of those tools. Will the Solicitor General share with my constituents what tech the Government are set to deploy to help us address those crimes more efficiently through the criminal justice system?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

I know my hon. Friend has raised those important issues on the Floor of the House previously. I also know how hard she is working to ensure the safety of residents in her area.

Too many town centres and high streets are plagued by antisocial behaviour and shoplifting. Those crimes are too often dismissed as low-level, but communities have to deal with the consequences. This Government are taking action: we are putting an additional 13,000 police and PCSOs on our streets and introducing respect orders to ensure that disruptive antisocial behaviour is eradicated from our town centres. I have been visiting local CPS units around the country and have seen at first hand their hard work to ensure that crimes are successfully prosecuted and that perpetrators are put behind bars.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Solicitor General.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

The criticism would carry a little more weight were it not for the fact that the Conservatives spent the last 14 years driving up the record court backlog. The root causes of the backlog are a direct result of the Conservatives’ choices. The previous Government closed over 260 court buildings, and the record court backlog now stands at 73,000 cases. As we have said, the human cost of those delays is considerable—victims are waiting years for justice. The Lord Chancellor is taking robust action. She has increased the number of Crown court sitting days, increased magistrate courts’ sentencing powers and asked Sir Brian Leveson to lead an independent review of our criminal courts to look at options for longer-term reform. The previous Government did not act; they drove up the backlog. This Government are taking action.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

As the Solicitor General says, the Lord Chancellor has substantially increased sitting days. The lack of a judge is only one reason that courts stand empty. In the first nine months of 2024, 368 Crown court trials were rendered ineffective because the prosecutor failed to attend. What discussions has the Solicitor General had with the CPS on improving prosecutor attendance, so that Crown courts can sit closer to judicial capacity?

Sustainable Farming Incentive

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend asks an important question. This is, of course, an EU legacy scheme, and we are considering the best way of taking that forward in the future, but we are absolutely committed to supporting and working with the horticultural sector.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We have around 35 minutes remaining. Questions must be short and the Minister’s response must be on point and tight. I call the Father of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I do not know how to break this to the Minister: I do not know if he realises this, but when the thousands of farmers come to Westminster, they do not come to thank him or the Secretary of State. Yesterday, we had the sustainable farming incentive announcement. Today, there is an announcement that there is to be no extension to the fruit and vegetables aid scheme, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). That, of course, follows the family farm tax.

The Minister’s announcement today speaks very ill of the financial management of his Department. I make no apologies for repeating the questions asked by my right hon. and hon. Friends. When did the Minister know that he was hitting his budget ceiling? When had he set that as a criterion? What discussions has he had with the Treasury to increase the budget? Why was he deliberately, I presume, misleading farmers by pledging a six-week notice period, when it was not even six seconds?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Just before the Minister responds, the hon. Member knows that he cannot use the term “deliberately misleading”. I ask him to withdraw that statement.

[Simon Hoare]

Inadvertently misleading.

Points of Order

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), has been asked repeatedly why no notice was given to farmers of the closure of the SFI scheme. He has given a range of answers, including that “people have known for weeks and weeks—months”. He even stretched it to five years ago. This is important, not least because business decisions are having to be made on the fly today, but also because there may be legal consequences to the answer that the Minister has given. How can we encourage the Minister to correct the record and state the fact that no notice was given to farmers?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. The Chair is not responsible for the accuracy of Ministers’ statements in the House, but she has put her point of order on the record. I do not believe that the Minister wishes to respond—

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

indicated dissent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Then I will end that there.

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to correct the record and make a declaration of interests. In my excitement while making my first intervention during proceedings on the Employment Rights Bill yesterday, I did not point Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests or mention my proud membership of the Community, GMB and Unison unions. I would like to ensure that that is on the record as well as in the register.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for advance notice of her point of order. I know that she has been diligent in seeking advice on how and when to declare an interest. That is now on the record.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 21 May 2024, the former Defence Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), published records of blood and urine tests relating to nuclear test veterans. He said at that time that there were 150. It has now become clear from the correspondence of a court case brought by the British nuclear test veterans that there are 370 documents mentioning blood and urine. That includes 265 that were previously unseen and unreleased. That raises the possibility, as you will appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Atomic Weapons Establishment misled Ministers about the number of records, and that, inadvertently and entirely innocently, the Minister brought the wrong information to this House. I seek your guidance on how the Government can correct the record and publish those extra records. The nuclear test veterans deserve nothing less.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. The Chair is not responsible for the accuracy of ministerial statements in the House, but he has put his point on the record and no doubt those on the Treasury Bench are taking note and listening.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 1—Water Restoration Fund—

“(1) No more than 60 days after the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the establishment, operation and management of a Water Restoration Fund.

(2) A Water Restoration Fund is a fund—

(a) into which any monetary penalties imposed for specified offences must be paid, and

(b) out of which payments must be made for expenditure on measures to improve the quality of the freshwater environment in England.

(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations list the specified offences for the purpose of this section, which must include—

(a) any relevant provisions of the Water Resources Act 1991, including—

(i) section 24(4) (unlicensed abstraction or related works or contravening abstraction licence); 22 Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL];

(ii) section 25(2) (unlicensed impounding works or contravening impounding licence);

(iii) section 25C(1) (contravening abstraction or impounding enforcement notice);

(iv) section 80 (contravening drought order or permit);

(v) section 201(3) (contravening water resources information notice);

(b) regulations under section 2 of the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 (regulation of polluting activities etc);

(c) regulations under section 61 of the Water Act 2014 (regulation of water resources etc).

(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument add to the list of offences specified in subsection (3).

(6) The provisions in this section replace any existing provision for the sums received for specified offences, including in section 22A(9) of the Water Industry Act 1991 (penalties).”

This new clause would require all funds from fines on water companies for environmental offences to be ringfenced for the Water Restoration Fund, for spending on freshwater recovery.

New clause 2—Abolition of the Water Services Regulation Authority—

“(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows.

(2) For section 1A (Water Services Regulation Authority) substitute the following—

‘1A Abolition of the Water Services Regulation Authority

(1) The body corporate known as the Water Services Regulation Authority (in this Act referred to as “the Authority”) is abolished.

(2) All references to the duties and functions of the Authority in this Act or any other enactment are null and void.’

(3) Omit Schedule 1A (The Water Services Regulation Authority).”

This new clause abolishes Ofwat.

New clause 3—Impact of the Act on the Environment Agency—

“The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act—

(a) review the impact of this Act on the Environment Agency;

(b) consider whether the Environment Agency requires any additional resources to meet the additional requirements placed upon it by this Act.”

New clause 4—Duty to publish maps of sewage catchment networks—

“After section 205 of the Water Industry Act 1991 insert—

‘205ZA Duty to publish maps of sewage catchment networks

(1) Each relevant undertaker must publish a map of its sewage catchment network.

(2) A map published under this section must illustrate any relevant pumping stations, pipes, and other works constituting part of the undertaker’s sewerage network.

(3) Maps published under this section must be published within 12 months of the passing of this Act, and must be updated whenever changes are made to the sewage catchment network or the components listed in subsection (2).

(4) Maps published under this section must be made publicly accessible on the undertaker’s website.’”

New clause 5—Duty to prevent chemical pollutants entering the water environment—

“After section 68 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (Duties of water undertakers and water supply licensees with respect to water quality), insert—

‘68A Duty to prevent chemical pollutants entering the water environment

(1) It shall be the duty of a water undertaker to take such steps as are necessary to reduce and prevent chemical pollutants, including but not limited to poly- and perfluorinated alkyl substances, entering the water environment.

(2) In fulfilling its duty under subsection (1), a relevant undertaker must publish a strategy outlining how it intends to reduce and prevent chemical pollutants entering the water environment.

(3) In developing a strategy under subsection (2), a relevant undertaker must consult with appropriate agencies, including but not limited to—

(a) the relevant Government department;

(b) the Authority;

(c) the Environment Agency; and

(d) the Drinking Water Inspectorate.

(4) A strategy under subsection (2) must include consideration of how the costs of reducing and preventing chemical pollutants entering the water environment are to be borne or recovered, where such consideration must prevent such cost recovery from resulting in additional charges being made upon consumers.’”

New clause 6—Licence conditions about nature recovery—

“In the Water Industry Act 1991, after section 17FB insert—

‘17FC Nature recovery

(1) reducing flood risk and pollution incidents, improving water quality and benefiting nature restoration in their catchment area.

(2) The Authority must not take any action that discourages or prevents a relevant undertaker from making an investment in accordance with subsection (1).’”

This new clause would make it a condition of all water companies’ licences to consider nature-based solutions to flood risk, improving water quality and benefiting nature restoration in their catchment area, and prevent the regulator from discouraging or stopping such investments.

New clause 7—Review of price review process—

“In section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991, after subsection (2B) insert—

‘(2BA) In furthering its objectives and purposes under subsection (2A), the Authority must, within 12 months of the passing of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, review its practices as to reviewing price limits.

(2BB) A review under subsection (2BA) must consider—

(a) whether the current practice of price reviews every five years should be replaced with an annual, or otherwise more frequent, system;

(b) how changes to inflation and other financial or economic changes could or should be reflected in prices charged by water companies;

(c) how any future system of price reviews could better support undertakers in planning and delivering investments beyond a single asset management plan period.’”

New clause 8—Prohibition on bail-out of water company shareholders and creditors—

“(1) The Secretary of State and His Majesty’s Treasury must not directly or indirectly discharge, assume, or guarantee any debts of legal entities in any water company group subject to proceedings under section 24 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (special administration orders made on special petitions), except in accordance with subsection (2).

(2) The special administrator of a water company may reduce the debts owed by the regulated entity to its creditors by up to 100 per cent, taking into account the future forecast expenditure over the short, medium and long term and subject to the administrator’s confidence in the company’s ability to accommodate this spending.

(3) The prohibition set out in subsection (1) and the reduction of debts set out in subsection (2) must not include pension, wage and other obligations owed to employees, excluding any past or current member of a board of directors, within the water company group.”

This new clause aims to allow up to 100% of debts to be cancelled in the event of special administration proceedings, taking into account the scale of investment required to hit the future targets established by the Authority.

New clause 9—Ofwat to publish guidance on debt levels after administration—

“In section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991, after subsection (2D) insert—

‘(2DZA) For the purposes of ensuring that relevant undertakers are able to finance the proper carrying out of their functions under subsection (2A)(c), the Authority must establish guidelines to be followed by relevant undertakers who have been in special administration.

(2DZB) Guidelines produced under subsection (2DZA) must—

(a) set out a maximum level of debt which can be accrued by the undertaker;

(b) set out a process for agreeing capital expenditure necessary for service improvements, bill increases, and changes to operating costs while the undertaker is subject to the Special Administration Regime;

(c) state the penalties which will be imposed for breaches of such guidelines, which may include—

(i) financial penalties;

(ii) prohibitions on the payment of dividends or other bonuses; or

(iii) such other special measures as the Authority deems appropriate.’”

New clause 11—Duty on sewerage undertakers to monitor overflows at sewage treatment works, pumping stations and on the sewer network—

“(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 94—

(a) after subsection (1)(b) insert—

‘(c) to make provision for the accurate collection of data relating to its performance in fulfilling its duties under paragraphs (a) and (b).’

(b) after subsection (2) insert—

‘(2A) In performing its duties under subsection (1)(c), a sewerage undertaker must—

(a) install volume flow meters in all locations where sewage overflows occur, including sewage treatment works, pumping stations and on the sewer network for which it is responsible;

(b) establish appropriate required capacities for each sewage treatment works and pumping station;

(c) publish information on the data and calculations used to establish such required capacities; and

(d) install all required monitoring tools within 12 months of the passing of this Act.’”

New clause 12—Rules about performance-related pay—

“(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 35D (inserted by section 1 of this Act) insert—

‘35E Rules about performance-related pay

(1) The Authority must issue rules prohibiting a relevant undertaker from giving to persons holding senior roles performance-related pay in respect of any financial year in which the undertaker has failed to prevent all sewage discharges, spills, or leaks.

(2) The rules issued under subsection (1) must include—

(a) provision designed to secure that performance-related pay which, if given by a relevant undertaker, would contravene the pay prohibition on the part of the undertaker, is not given by another person;

(b) that any provision of an agreement (whether made before or after the issuing of the rules) is void to the extent that it contravenes the pay prohibition;

(c) provision for a relevant undertaker to recover any payment made, or other property transferred, in breach of the pay prohibition.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)—

(a) “performance-related pay” means any payment, consideration or other benefit (including pension benefit) the giving of which results from the meeting of any targets or performance standards on the part of the relevant undertaker or the person to whom such payment, consideration or benefit is given;

(b) a person holds a “senior role” with a relevant undertaker if the person—

(i) is a chief executive of the undertaker,

(ii) is a director of the undertaker, or

(iii) holds such other description of role with the undertaker as may be specified.’”

This new clause creates a new section in the Water Industry Act 1991 to require Ofwat to ban bonuses for water company bosses if they fail to prevent sewage discharges, spills, or leaks.

New clause 13—Rules about competitive procurement in water infrastructure—

“(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 35A insert—

‘Rules about competitive procurement in water infrastructure

(1) The Authority must issue rules requiring relevant undertakers to use competitive procurement processes in respect of procurement relating to water infrastructure.

(2) If the Authority considers that a relevant undertaker is contravening the rules, the Authority may give the undertaker a direction to do, or not to do, a particular thing specified in the direction.

(3) It is the duty of a relevant undertaker to comply with a direction given under subsection (2), and this duty is enforceable by the Authority under section 18.

(4) Rules under this section may—

(a) make different provision for different relevant undertakers or descriptions of undertakers;

(b) make different provision for different purposes;

(c) make provision subject to exceptions.

(3) The Authority may from time to time—

(a) revise rules issued under this section, and

(b) issue the revised rules.’”

New clause 14—Ofwat consideration of pollution targets for price reviews—

“(1) The Water Industry Act 2011 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 17I insert—

‘“17IA Duty to have regard to pollution targets in carrying out price reviews

When carrying out a periodic review for the purpose of setting a Price Control in respect of one or more relevant undertakers, the Authority must have regard to the performance of the relevant undertaker or undertakers against pollution targets across the previous five years.’”

New clause 15—Database of performance of sewerage undertakers—

“(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows.

(2) In Chapter 3 of Part II (Protection of customers etc), after section 27ZA (Power to require information for purpose of monitoring) insert—

‘27ZB Duty to establish database

(1) It shall be the duty of the Authority to establish and maintain a database containing information relating to the performance of sewerage undertakers.

(2) The database must—

(a) be publicly and freely accessible;

(b) enable uploaded information to be updated in live-time;

(c) contain such data or information as the Authority thinks is necessary for the purposes of public transparency as to the performance of sewerage undertakers; and

(d) contain—

(i) current and historic data; and

(ii) data and information which has been independently collected or analysed including—

(a) the start time, end time and duration of all sewage spill events,

(b) flow data from flow monitors,

(c) the location of each flow meter from which flow data is provided.

(3) The Authority may make rules about the provision of data and information under this section.

(4) Rules under subsection (3) must include rules relating to information provided about the location of flow meters.

(5) The Authority may impose penalties on undertakers who fail to provide such information as is required by this section.’”

New clause 16—Establishment of Water Restoration Fund—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 60 days of the passing of this Act, make provision for the establishment, operation and management of a Water Restoration Fund.

(2) A Water Restoration Fund is a fund—

(a) into which any monetary penalties imposed on water companies for specified offences must be paid, and

(b) out of which payments must be made for expenditure on measures—

(i) to help water bodies, including chalk streams, achieve good ecological status, and improve ecological potential and chemical status;

(ii) to prevent further deterioration of the ecological status, ecological potential or chemical status of water bodies, including chalk streams;

(iii) to enable water-dependent habitats to return to, or remain at, favourable condition;

(iv) to restore other water-dependent habitats and species, especially where action supports restoration of associated protected sites or water bodies.

(3) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, list the specified offences for the purposes of this section, which must include—

(a) any relevant provisions of the Water Resources Act 1991, including—

(i) section 24(4) (unlicensed abstraction or related works or contravening abstraction licence);

(ii) section 25(2) (unlicensed impounding works or contravening impounding licence);

(iii) section 25C(1) (contravening abstraction or impounding enforcement notice);

(iv) section 80 (contravening drought order or permit);

(v) section 201(3) (contravening water resources information notice);

(b) any relevant regulations under section 2 of the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 (regulation of polluting activities etc) related to water pollution;

(c) regulations under section 61 of the Water Act 2014 (regulation of water resources etc).

(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(5) The provisions in this section replace any existing provision for the sums received for specified offences, including in section 22A(9) of the Water Industry Act 1991 (penalties).”

New clause 17—Rules about borrowing—

“After section 154B of the Water Industry Act 1991 (financial assistance for major works) insert—

‘Chapter III

Rules about borrowing for undertakers

154C Restrictions on undertakers relating to borrowing

(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument implement a limit on borrowing by a relevant undertaker.

(2) Where a relevant undertaker has total borrowing exceeding the limit set by regulations made under subsection (1), the relevant undertaker may not make a payment of dividends, capital, assets, or interest to shareholders or controlling entities.

(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’”

This new clause would enable limits to be placed on the amount of money that can be borrowed by a water or sewerage undertaker, and prevent an undertaker who has exceeded such limits from being able to pay dividends to shareholders.

New clause 19—Civil penalties: equivalent reduction to customer bills—

“(1) The Secretary of State must make provision for any monetary penalties imposed on a water company to result in equivalent reductions to the amounts charged to customers by the relevant water company.

(2) In fulfilling its duties under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must arrange, annually—

(a) for the total amount of monetary penalties imposed on a water company in the previous year to be calculated;

(b) for that total to be divided by the number of customers of the water company;

(c) for each customer’s next bill from the water company to be reduced by that figure.

(3) Any reduction applied under this section must be indicated on a customer’s statement of account.

(4) In this section, ‘water company’ has the meaning given by section 6(5).”

This new clause would provide for any fines imposed on water companies to result in equivalent reductions to customers’ bills.

New clause 20—Principles of best regulatory practice—

“In section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991, after subsection (4) insert —

(4A) For the purposes of having regard to the principles of best regulatory practice, the Authority shall not employ any individual who has been employed by a relevant undertaker in the preceding three years.”

New clause 21—Environmental duties with respect to protected landscapes—

“After section 4 of the Water Industry Act 1991 insert—

‘4A Environmental duties with respect to protected landscapes

(1) Where a relevant undertaker operates, or has any effect, on land within protected landscapes, that undertaker must—

(a) Secure and maintain “high ecological status” in the water in these areas by 2028;

(b) further the conservation and enhancement of wildlife and natural beauty;

(c) improve every storm overflow that discharges within these areas by 2028;

(d) reduce the load of total phosphorus discharged into freshwaters within these areas from relevant discharges by 2028 to at least 90% lower than the baseline as defined in Regulation 13(1) of the Waste Water Targets set under the Environment Targets (Water) (England) Regulations 2023.

(2) A relevant undertaker must be put into special administration, and not be eligible for a further licence, if it fails to—

(a) demonstrate adequate progress each year;

(b) meet the targets in subsection (1).

(3) Within one year of the day on which the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 is passed, the Secretary of State must lay a report on the undertakers’ implementation of the environmental duties in subsections (1) and (2) before Parliament.

(4) Following the first report being published under subsection (3), a progress report on implementation must be included in the annual environment improvement plan, issued under section 8 of the Environment Act 2021.

(5) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring an undertaker to achieve bespoke objectives for specific iconic and the most culturally and ecologically significant waterways, including, where appropriate, complete removal of sewage discharge from the undertaker’s infrastructure.

(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(7) In this section—

“protected landscapes” includes national parks, national landscapes and national trails;

”land” includes rivers, lakes, streams, estuarine and other waterways;

”High Ecological Status” means the classification of water bodies defined in Regulation 6 of The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017.’”

New clause 22—Consultation on public ownership of water companies—

“(1) The Secretary of State must within three months of this Act coming into force, publish a public consultation on making provision for the transfer of ownership of undertakers to public ownership.

(2) The consultation must consider—

(a) the process of transferring private water companies to public ownership;

(b) the circumstances in which water companies will be transferred to public ownership;

(c) the establishment of new public bodies to manage water services;

(d) transition arrangements for employees, contracts, and ongoing operations;

(e) governance structures for publicly-owned water services, including provisions for local democratic control and accountability.

(3) The Secretary of State must, within twelve months of the passing of this Act, lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on this consultation.”

New clause 23—Special administration for breach of environmental and other obligations—

“(1) Section 24 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (special administration orders made on special petitions) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (2)(a), insert—

‘(aa) that there have been failures resulting in enforcement action from the Authority or the Environment Agency on three or more occasions to—

(i) maintain efficient and economical water supply,

(ii) improve mains for the flow of clean water,

(iii) provide sewerage systems that are effectually drained,

(iv) comply with the terms of its licence, or

(v) abide by anti-pollution duties in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Water Resources Act 1991, or the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 (SI 2016/1154);’

(3) After subsection (2), insert—

‘(2A) In support of an application made by virtue of subsection (1)(a) in relation to subsection (2)(aa), the Secretary of State must compile and present to the High Court records of—

(a) water pipe leaks

(b) sewage spilled into waterways, bathing waters, and private properties, and

(c) falling below international standards of effective water management.’”

This new clause aims to require the Secretary of State to place a water company into special administration arrangements if they breach certain environmental or other conditions.

New clause 24—Special administration: criminal convictions—

“After subsection (2)(e) of section 24 of the Water Industry Act 1991 insert—

‘(f) that has been the recipient of two or more criminal convictions in the last five years.’”

This new clause aims to exert pressure on companies to operate within the law by preventing water companies with numerous criminal convictions from remaining in business.

New clause 25—Companies to be placed in special measures for missing pollution targets—

“In section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991, after subsection (2D) insert—

‘(2DZA) For the purposes of ensuring that the functions of water and sewerage undertakers are properly carried out, the Authority must establish—

(a) annual, and

(b) rolling five-year average pollution targets which must be met by water and sewerage undertakers, and the penalties to be imposed for failure to meet such targets.

(2DZB) The performance of a water or sewerage undertaker against such targets must be measured through independent analysis of monitoring data.

(2DZC) A timetable produced under subsection (2DZA)(b) must require the following reductions in the duration of sewage spill events, using the annual total hours’ duration of all sewage spill events recorded by Event Duration Monitors, based on an average from the last five years, as a baseline—

(a) a 25% reduction within five years;

(b) a 60% reduction within ten years;

(c) an 85% reduction within fifteen years; and

(d) a 99% reduction within twenty years.

(2DZD) A water or sewerage undertaker which fails to meet pollution targets set out by the Authority will be subject to such special measures as the Authority deems appropriate, which may include—

(a) being required to work on improvement projects with or take instruction from the Authority, the relevant Government department, or such other bodies or authorities as the Authority deems appropriate; and

(b) financial penalties.’”

New clause 26—Independent review: companies exiting a special administration regime—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, either—

(a) commission an independent review, or

(b) take steps to extend the terms of reference of any existing independent review or commission,

to consider the merits of changing the law to provide that a water company exiting a special administration regime becomes a company mutually owned by its customers.

(2) A review under subsection (1) must consider—

(a) the general merits of mutual ownership of water companies in such circumstances, and

(b) what model of mutual ownership would be most suitable.

(3) The Secretary of State must, as soon as practicable after receiving a report of a review under subsection (1), lay before both Houses of Parliament—

(a) a copy of the report, and

(b) a statement setting out the Secretary of State’s response to that report.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the potential merits of changing the law so that a water company exiting a special administration regime becomes a company mutually owned by its customers.

Amendment 23, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert—

“(1A) The Authority must use its power under subsection (1) to issue rules which require—

(a) the interests of customers, and

(b) the environment,

to be listed as primary objectives in a relevant undertaker’s Articles of Association.”

Amendment 15, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert—

“(d) requiring the management board of a relevant undertaker to include at least one representative of each of the following—

(i) groups for the benefit and interests of consumers;

(ii) groups for the benefit and interests of residents of the areas in which the undertaker is operational;

(iii) experts in water and sewerage policy and management; and

(iv) environmental interest groups.”

Amendment 16, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert—

“(d) preventing a relevant undertaker from employing any individual who has been employed by the Authority in the preceding three years.”

Amendment 17, in clause 2, page 4, line 34, after “occurrence” insert “and impact”. Amendment 19, in clause 2, page 5, line 15, after “occurrence” insert “and impact”.

Amendment 18, in clause 2, page 5, line 17, at end insert—

“(ea) the use the undertaker plans to make of nature-based solutions for reducing the occurrence and impact of pollution incidents,”.

Amendment 11, in clause 3, page 7, line 35, at end insert—

“(e) the volume of the discharge.”

Amendment 12, in clause 3, page 7, line 38, leave out “subsection (1)(d)” and insert “subsections (1)(d) and (e)”.

Amendment 1, in clause 3, page 8, line 5, at end insert—

“(c) be published on the home page of the undertaker’s website.”

This amendment would ensure that information regarding a discharge from an emergency overflow must be published on the home page of the undertaker’s website.

Amendment 13, in clause 3, page 8, line 5, at end insert—

“(c) be uploaded and updated automatically, where possible;

(d) be made available on the undertaker’s website alongside searchable and comparable historic data.”

Amendment 14, in clause 3, page 8, line 5, at end insert—

“(3A) The undertaker must ensure that, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, appropriate monitors are installed to collect the information required by subsection (1).”

Amendment 22, in clause 3, page 8, line 27, leave out from start to “in” and insert

“a Minister with specific responsibility for issues relating to the coast,”.

Amendment 2, in clause 3, page 9, line 23, at end insert—

“141H Failure to report discharge from emergency overflows

(1) If a relevant undertaker fails to comply with its duties under section 141F—

(a) the undertaker commits an offence, and

(b) the chief executive of the undertaker commits an offence, subject to subsection (2).

(2) It is a defence for the chief executive to prove that they took all reasonable steps to avoid the failure.

(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable, on summary conviction or conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or an unlimited fine, or both.”

This amendment would make it an offence for an undertaker to fail to comply with its duty to report discharges from emergency overflows.

Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 9, line 23, at end insert—

“141H Restriction on the use of emergency overflows in areas used for aquatic sports

(1) A sewerage undertaker must not permit a discharge from an emergency overflow in an area used for aquatic sports.

(2) In this section, an “area used for aquatic sports” is a section of any body of water connected to and within a one mile radius of—

(a) the clubhouse of a rowing club affiliated with British Rowing,

(b) a Royal Yacht association training centre or the clubhouse of an affiliate member, and

(c) the properties or facilities used by any organisation that the Secretary of State deems to provides water-based sporting activities for the purpose of teaching, training or leisure.

(3) If a relevant undertaker fails to comply with its duties under section (1)—

(a) the undertaker commits an offence, and

(b) the chief executive of the undertaker commits an offence, subject to subsection (4).

(4) It is a defence for the chief executive to prove that they took all reasonable steps to avoid the failure

(5) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable, on summary conviction or conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or an unlimited fine, or both.”

This amendment creates an offence for a sewerage undertaker to use an emergency overflow in an area used for aquatic sports.

Amendment 20, in clause 4, page 9, line 29, leave out

“use that is to be made of”

and insert

“priority that is to be given to”.

Amendment 21, in clause 9, page 13, line 40, leave out from “duties” to end of page 14, line 2.

Government amendment 4.

Amendment 9, in clause 12, page 15, line 34, leave out from “to” to “such” in line 36 and insert “recover from its creditors”.

Amendment 26, in clause 12, page 15, line 39, at end insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State may not require or permit any modified charges to be imposed on persons who do not receive services from the company for the purposes of making good any SAO loss.”

Amendment 10, in clause 13, page 18, line 13, leave out from “to” to “such” in line 15 and insert “recover from its creditors”.

Amendment 27, in clause 13, page 18, line 18, at end insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State may not require or permit any modified charges to be imposed on persons who do not receive services from the company for the purposes of making good any SAO loss.”

Amendment 24, in clause 15, page 21, line 4, leave out subsections (2) to (8) and insert—

“(2) The provisions of this Act come into force on the day on which this Act is passed.”

Government amendments 5, 6, 7 and 8.

[Emma Hardy]

What a delight it is to be back in the Chamber debating this transformational Bill. I will keep my opening comments brief, because I know that many want to speak, and I will respond to amendments tabled by hon. Members when closing this debate after hon. Members have spoken to them, as is established practice.

I want to start by thanking all members of the Public Bill Committee for their careful consideration and scrutiny of the Bill and, dare I say, their comradery in discussions and debates. It is clear that this is an area that everyone acknowledges is in need of change and reform. I also thank the Chairs, the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq). It was a pleasure to serve under them.

Since being in Committee, I have had several further insightful conversations on the Bill with Members from across the House and on the amendments tabled by the Government for consideration on Report, which I will take the opportunity to speak to now. I will start with Government amendment 4, which is a minor and technical amendment that ensures that clause 10 encompasses new enforcement functions arising from the changes made to clause 2 in the other place.

Government amendment 4 clarifies that cost recovery powers for the Environment Agency, expanded by the provisions in clause 10, also extend to costs incurred when enforcing the requirement to publish implementation plans. That requirement was added on Report in the Lords after cross-party discussions and collaboration. The amendment also clarifies that EA cost recovery powers concerning both pollution incident reduction plans and implementation reports are available for plans covering areas that are wholly or mainly in Wales, as well as for plans covering England, which are already included in clause 10. Such clarifications ensure that the EA regulators in both England and Wales can fully recover costs for the extent of their water company enforcement activities and carry out their duties and functions effectively.

The Government have tabled amendments 5 to 7 in order to commence clause 1 on Royal Assent. That will give Ofwat and companies certainty on when the powers to make rules on remuneration and governance will come into force and will therefore be useful to companies in planning for the 2025-26 financial year. Commencement of clause 1 on Royal Assent will ensure Ofwat can implement its rules as soon as possible following its statutory consultation with relevant persons, which include the Secretary of State, Welsh Ministers and the Consumer Council for Water. I know that some Members have expressed concerns around the timeline over which Ofwat’s rules will come into effect. I therefore hope the alteration to the commencement provisions for clause 1 will reassure those Members that the Government and the regulators are absolutely committed to ensuring Ofwat’s rules are put in place as quickly as possible.

I now turn to new clause 18, which is the most substantial of the Government amendments. As I have stated before, this Government are a Government of service, and we are absolutely committed to taking action to address water poverty. We are working with industry to keep existing support schemes under review to ensure vulnerable customers across the country are supported. We also expect companies to hold themselves accountable for their public commitment to end water poverty by 2030 and will work with the sector to ensure appropriate measures are taken to deliver that.

That is why we have tabled the new clause, which adds to the existing powers to provide for special charging arrangements for customers in need. The new provision will enable water companies to provide consistent support for consumers across the country. It will also allow for automatic enrolment on any future scheme and broader information sharing between public authorities and water companies. The clause imposes a requirement for consultation on any future scheme, and it also amends the Digital Economy Act 2017 to ensure that water companies identify eligible customers and that they get the full support to which they are entitled.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We have many contributions to come and quite a tight deadline, so Back Benchers will be limited to four minutes. I call the shadow Minister.

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

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this vital issue of water quality once again. As His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition have maintained through the passage of the Bill, it is just an attempt to copy and paste some of the work done by the previous Conservative Government and the measures taken to identify the problem. We will not shy away from the fact that the Conservative Government were the first to identify the scale of the sewage problem and actually to start to address it. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) just said, when Labour left office in 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were monitored. When we Conservatives left office last year, 100% were monitored and our landmark Environment Act 2021 paved the way to improving the quality of our precious waters.

However, we are under no illusions: there is always more that can be done, and we have always said that we will seek to work constructively to make the Bill as effective as possible. In that spirit, I thank the Minister for her willingness to discuss matters of the Bill with me and with colleagues across the House; the Minister in the other place, Baroness Hayman, showed an equal willingness to listen to suggestions from colleagues. I also thank members of the Bill Committee for their constructive approach and all the Bill team, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and parliamentary staff supporting this legislation and our scrutiny of it.

As a result of that dialogue, the Bill now includes welcome improvements in several areas, such as company requirements to produce implementation reports to outline how they envision their commitments on improving water quality happening, as well as consideration of nature-based solutions in licensing activities. However, in that same constructive spirit, the Opposition today ask the Government to go even further. We want the Government to back our new clause 16 mandating the water restoration fund, which had cross-party support in Committee. I thank the good folk of the Conservative Environment Network and Wildlife and Countryside Link for their support and campaigning on the new clause, as well as the Angling Trust for its discussions. I also thank the former MP for Ludlow and former Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee Philip Dunne for his assiduous efforts to see the fund introduced.

--- Later in debate ---

To conclude, we urge the Government not to waste this opportunity to make this Bill properly effective. Members on both sides of the House want a clean water system, a healthy water environment, financially resilient water companies and fairness for the consumer. The Government have the opportunity to work towards that, with the constructive suggestions made by His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. We have made those suggestions at all stages of the Bill, and we urge the Government to take them forward.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Back Benchers are on a four-minute limit.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

First, I thank EFRA Ministers for the work they have done on this Bill, and for everything they have been doing in working on the consultation. It is quite clear to most of the public that not only is England’s privatised model of water failing, but it is an extreme ideological outlier. It is one of the worst for costs and results. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) is chuntering away in his place. We need a long-term, patient approach, especially given the climate crisis, and that is fundamentally incompatible with privatisation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Unfortunately, colleagues making interventions have eaten into time, so I now have to call the Front Benchers. I call the shadow Minister, Dr Neil Hudson.

[Dr Hudson]

It has been a wide-ranging debate, although shorter than we had hoped for. I thank Members for participating today. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) for her passion for enhancing the accountability of water companies and protecting watersports, which we are all passionate about, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) for passionately advocating for the water restoration fund.

New clause 16 would establish the water restoration fund, to ringfence money from fines to restore local waterways, not to balance the Treasury’s books. This was a Conservative fund, and the Labour Government must not let ideology stand in the way of evidence-based policymaking. They must take the baton forward and ringfence this money, so that waterways can be restored locally.

Climate and Nature Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Given that we have strong cross-party consensus, as has been demonstrated today, on the urgency of tackling the climate and nature crisis, I do not understand the hon. Lady’s argument that the Government would somehow draw back from measures that they have committed, in negotiation with the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), to take forward. A number of hon. Members think that it is important to vote on a Bill that will help move us further and faster towards tacking the climate and nature crisis. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) explained, Second Reading is an opportunity to further discuss the issues and build cross-party consensus on exactly the measures needed. Will she explain why a vote on the Bill is not a good idea—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I have a long list of speakers to call.

[Nadia Whittome]

I have every respect for the hon. Member and her Green party colleagues. I am not here to answer on behalf of the Government; I am here to hold the Government to account, which is what I will be doing. I am also here to win material change on climate, economic and social justice. That will be what drives my strategy.

With Trump’s election in the US, his Government of billionaires, for billionaires, and his frenzied pursuit of fossil fuels, it is more important now than ever that we do not pander to his climate denialism and that the UK plays a leading role in mitigating the climate crisis, restoring nature and adapting to the impacts that those emergencies are causing. Our lives, especially the lives of younger generations, will be blighted by those twin crises. In recent months, we have seen fires raging through California, storm after storm batter the UK, and devastating flooding from Thailand to Spain. If this is now, imagine the extreme weather events we could be seeing in 20, 40 or 60 years.

Earlier this month, the UN Secretary-General reiterated that

“global emissions must peak this year and rapidly decline thereafter if we are to have a sliver of a hope of limiting long-term global temperature rise to 1.5°C.”

I welcome the positive and vital steps that our Government have already taken on environmental issues in their first six months, on home-grown clean power, stopping new fossil fuel projects, cleaning up our filthy rivers, providing public transport and retrofitting homes. However, we all recognise—I am sure Ministers themselves recognise—that we must go further still, which is what the measures in the Bill are all about, ensuring that we reduce carbon emissions at the speed and scale required, and that we take the steps necessary to fight the climate and nature emergency, which are intertwined crises that cannot be tackled in silo.

The campaign behind the Climate and Nature Bill has been phenomenal. I am very proud to have played a small part as one the co-sponsors of the Bill and its previous iteration, the Climate and Ecology (No. 2) Bill. I thank the Zero Hour campaign and the thousands of people who have pushed for the Bill over many years, from climate scientists to academics to medical professionals, and every other person who has raised their voice for the future of the planet, including many in Nottingham East. It is because of them, including those in the Public Gallery and outside, that the Bill has been backed by around 200 MPs, including 90 Labour Members. I also thank those who have sponsored previous versions of the Bill, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) and for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), former Member Caroline Lucas, and most recently the hon. Member for South Cotswolds. She has worked tirelessly to get us to this point, to push for the measures in the Bill, and to engage with the Government. Thanks to her hard work, we have won commitments from the Government on which all co-sponsors, particularly those on the Labour Benches, will be holding them to account.

As I have already said, these measures are not the sum total of what the climate and nature crises require of us. There is so much further for us to go, but I am hopeful that today will be the beginning, or rather the continuation of a journey that sees our Government work with campaigners for the Bill to take the action that we need. It is said again and again that politics is about choices, and there is no more important choice than our very future. We have to choose to serve the interests of people in the UK and across the globe, and stand up to the wealthy and powerful, who are determined to enrich themselves at the expense of people and our planet.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Members should not need to be reminded that speeches should be directed towards the Chair, and most definitely not to the Gallery. I call Andrew George.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

I give the hon. Member my assurances on that. I want to make it absolutely clear that this is a long-standing problem. We have heard from both the Father of the House and the former baby of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome). [Interruption.] Not the Father of the House—the almost Father of the House. From a grandfather to an almost baby.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The Minister may wish to reflect on those comments before she resumes her speech.

[Mary Creagh]

I apologise for accidentally promoting the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) to Father of the House. He spoke as a grandfather with passion and energy on this issue, as did the former baby of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East—it is an issue that spans generations and parties. In this debate we have had a tour of all the beauty that is in our different constituencies. I feel that I, along with the Climate Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), will have to go on a massive tour of Britain, to do our briefs justice and make headway on this issue.

I also pay tribute to a late, great friend of mine, Lord John Prescott. We have heard talk about Kyoto; he showed that a seafarer from Hull could be the person who got climate agreement when the talks were gridlocked. He showed that the nature and climate emergencies are not elite preoccupations; it is the preoccupation not just of landowners or protestors, but of every working person in this country, and every citizen of this planet. I pay tribute to him and share my deepest condolences to his family and friends on their loss. Do go and see “Kyoto” at the Soho Place theatre, and get the extra-special climate lanyard on the way in.

Environmental Protection

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Strathern]

Absolutely. It will be important to establish close collaboration to ensure that the scheme is as effective as possible. There is a reason the Food & Drink Federation supports the measures: without them, it will not have the supply of high-quality recycled plastics needed to hit the targets that it is so keen to hit and is often already committed to. Without the legislation, those targets become almost impossible.

I will conclude my remarks by building on those of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), who highlighted the historical importance of good cross-party consensus and the importance of climate and nature issues. For a long time, this measure had cross-party support, and it is deeply regrettable that that does not seem to be the case today. I take some heart from the Conservatives’ lack of enthusiasm to leap in and speak bombastically about their newfound opposition to the measures, which I hope is a sign that there may be space in the coming months to work more collaboratively to ensure that we support the measures to be as effective as possible.

I am incredibly grateful to the Minister for lending me her ear on the important issue of metal recycling in Hitchin, and for the leadership that she has shown on this legislation, which will make a real difference for my community and those across the country. It is about time that we lead on making it a reality.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Speaker and the Deputy Speakers have been helpful and generous in allowing us to raise the case, using various parliamentary mechanisms, of Mr Alaa Abd el-Fattah, a British citizen who is still imprisoned in Egypt. I understand that the Foreign Secretary is to visit Egypt either tomorrow or the day after. Have you heard, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether there may be a written or oral statement from the Foreign Office about the Foreign Secretary raising Mr el-Fattah’s case, insisting upon his release or at least seeking a visit to this British citizen in prison? It is a matter of urgency, because his mother is now beyond the 100th day of hunger strike, and I fear for her life.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. I have had no indication that the Foreign Secretary intends to come to the House to make a statement, but I am sure that the Table Office will be able to advise him on how he might pursue the matter further.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to correct the record following my intervention on the New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill on Friday. I said:

“Regulations were due to come into force in 2016 that would have required all new homes to have zero carbon standards. Those regulations were scrapped by the coalition Government.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 631.]

In fact, regulations that would have required all new homes to have zero carbon standards were due to come into force in 2016, but they were watered down by the coalition Government in 2014, and the requirement for all new homes to have zero carbon standards was scrapped. What was left of the watered-down regulations was subsequently scrapped by the following Conservative Government in 2015.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order and for placing his correction of his earlier statement on the record.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)]

Further to the point of order made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), in the absence of any statement or urgent question being granted on the visit that the Foreign Secretary is hopefully making to Egypt on the fate of British prisoner Alaa Abd el-Fattah, and given the very serious condition of his mother—an academic from Sussex who is on a hunger strike and only taking water, and who a number of Members met today—can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on what other ways we can impress upon the Foreign Secretary the urgency of this issue? Every single day matters in what could be a life or death situation for his mother.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I believe that my earlier response to the similar point of order offered enough information, but no doubt by raising the point again, Ministers on the Front Bench will have heard again. The hon. Member’s point is on the record.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I am here for the next motion and as the Leader of the House responsible for statements to this House, let me reassure Members that I will raise this issue with the Foreign Secretary, who is very forthcoming—he has been to the House twice in the past week to make statements to keep the House updated. I am sure that he will want to keep the House updated on his conversations in Egypt and elsewhere, and I will ensure that the points of order have been heard.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the Leader of the House for a great response to those two points of order.