Flood Risk and Flood Defence Infrastructure: North-west England

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Morrison]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention, and yes, there is a question of flooding here. According to the EA’s March 2024 report, 3.2 million properties are at risk of surface water flooding. The latest surface water flooding risk assessment carried out by the EA increased the flood risk rating of many of the homes in my Cheadle constituency. Residents need to know that the Government are taking such flooding seriously.

From working with residents, Stockport council and the EA after the awful floods in January, it is clear to me that serious clarification is needed. Stockport council did not receive any funding from the EA or the Government following January’s disastrous flooding, despite its serious and widespread impact and the lives it ruined. What is more, the EA’s long-term flood risk management strategy for the River Mersey has been delayed, which is arguably one of the reasons why Stockport council missed out on the funding.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making a very good point. Does he agree that, notwithstanding the large drainage basins of rivers such as the Mersey, the Dee, the Kent and the Lune, which have systemic flood risk, there is also the issue of serious localised flooding across the region, which is often not tied to major drainage basins but connected to sewerage or groundwater?

[Mr Morrison]

The hon. Member makes a fantastic point, and that is the crux of the problem: we concentrate a lot on areas such as the Mersey, but we have a load of waterways and a load of issues around sewerage and drainage that need to be encompassed by our thinking.

Organisations responsible must be not only properly funded in the long term, but able to work constructively and effectively together to protect residents. As the Government force us to “build, baby, build”, new developments will only increase surface water flooding as more green belt gets built on and natural drainage is reduced. In the words of the National Infrastructure Commission itself, the Government’s response to the commission’s report on surface water flooding did

“not meet the scale of the challenge.”

The National Flood Forum receives more than 1,000 calls a year, often from vulnerable residents affected by recent developments causing flooding.

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill does not even refer to flooding or flood risk management, and the Environment Agency’s flood risk guidance is often ignored or legally challenged within the Bill. I was proud to support the Liberal Democrat amendments to the Bill that would have properly tackled flooding in relation to planning and required the implementation of sustainable drainage systems in any new development.

The EA’s own road map to 2026 suggests that, for every pound spent on protecting communities, we avoid around £5 in property damages. This is incredibly important, so now is the time to commit to long-term funding rather than shy away from it. That is essential to ensuring that my constituents in Cheadle, Bramhall, Woodford, Gatley and all the communities that have been impacted by flooding over the last 12 years can be supported in protecting their homes, their businesses and their communities, as well as reducing the impact of increasingly heavy storms, increased surface water and new developments that have not properly been considered.

I will finish with a remark from Karen, who lives near the Micker brook in Cheadle. She said:

“Planners and developers must take into account flooding when building. What happened at the mill in Stockport on New Year’s Day was simply appalling. The developer should be responsible for this.”

The Government must take urgent action that takes flood risk seriously and provides long-term, ringfenced funding for organisations such as the EA and responsible councils, and they must legislate without delay on the close connection between flooding, development and infrastructure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) for securing the debate, which is so important, especially with the winter months approaching.

As we have just heard, in January the north-west faced floods of such ferocity that they took everyone by surprise. Across Manchester, Cheshire and the Wigan borough, homes and livelihoods were devastated. In Leigh and Atherton, the damage was significant. For residents near Lilford Park, it was the second time they had endured a major flood in less than 10 years. To experience such destruction twice in a decade is unacceptable, and it is no wonder that people are asking whether our flood resilience measures are truly fit for purpose.

I witnessed at first hand the disruption and devastation that flooding causes to people’s lives—possessions lost and communities shaken. In the aftermath, the focus has rightly been on recovery. I am grateful to the emergency services, which responded swiftly at the time. I want also to acknowledge the support of local councillors, Wigan council officers and local businesses that gave their time and resources to those impacted. I thank the Minister for visiting the area to meet residents. I know her commitment to this issue; she is steadfast in wanting to support communities in their time of need.

People have gone above and beyond to support our neighbours, and we must never forget that spirit of solidarity. However, we owe it to residents to reduce the risk of this happening again. Since the incident, I have been working with the council, the Environment Agency and United Utilities on flood risk management in our area, particularly in Lilford and Higher Folds. Following our section 19 report, the Environment Agency is undertaking modelling of the Leigh East catchment area, which is expected to be completed in the summer.

Planting trees and promoting biodiversity are absolutely worthwhile, but they cannot replace the urgent need for proper flood storage—that goes back to the comment that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South made earlier. We need solutions that deliver real protection. Preliminary work has already identified potential water storage areas further upstream, but they need safeguarding from development at least while modelling is completed.

When they are done responsibly, developments can assist with flood prevention, but it is imperative that they are not looked at in isolation. Incorporating sustainable drainage systems, such as attenuation ponds, can drastically reduce downstream flooding. While they may not appear necessary for each development, the benefits downstream must not be underestimated.

[Phil Brickell]

As my constituency neighbour, does my hon. Friend share the frustration that I and my Bolton West constituents sometimes have about identifying who is responsible for the existing infrastructure and its maintenance? For example, we struggle to understand whether United Utilities or the council is responsible for localised flooding by Old Station Park and on Chorley New Road in Horwich, or on Lostock Junction Lane, and the source of the flooding.

[Jo Platt]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. As near neighbours, we share the same concerns. I do think that the Greater Manchester combined authority is leading on some really good work, pulling in all the agencies in order to work on the responsibilities of some of those partners, and we need to be part of that too.

We need decisive action now. Every household must be made flood-proof, not through quick fixes but through sustainable solutions that stand the test of time. That means that local and national policies must embed resilience at their core. Local authorities and the Environment Agency should be held accountable and given the resources to deliver.

Finally, I want to raise an issue that residents repeatedly bring to me. Many households find that insurance companies differ widely in the cover they offer for flood risk, leaving families vulnerable. What discussions has the Minister had with insurers and with the Build Back Better scheme to ensure fairness and consistency in cover for those affected?

Our community has shown strength in the face of adversity; now it is time for leadership to match that strength with action. We must build a future where homes are protected, families feel secure and flooding is no longer a recurring nightmare for Leigh and Atherton residents.

Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill

Phil Brickell Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 4th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I rise to support this vital Bill, and I commend the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) for bringing it to the House. As all Members will know, animal welfare is a major concern for our constituents, and nowhere is that more true than Bolton West. The Bill has been long awaited, and I am delighted that this Parliament will finally deliver where previous Parliaments were unable to deliver. We are a nation of animal lovers, and it should be a point of pride that, to reflect that, we strive to have the toughest animal welfare protections anywhere in the world.

My mailbox and postbag reflect the animal welfare concerns that I have and that we have heard during the debate. Dean, a constituent of mine in Daisy Hill, emailed to say:

“According to respondents to the Cats Protection Cats and Their Stats (CATS) 2024 survey, 4% of the cats that were obtained in the 12 months preceding the survey were from abroad. The importation of cats and dogs with mutilations (such as declawing and ear cropping), lack of vaccinations and health checks, and dangerous transport conditions present a significant risk to animal welfare.”

We know that the UK’s biosecurity is compromised by pet smuggling, given that animals may carry transmittable diseases such as rabies and tapeworm, which put both humans and animals at risk. The rising price of cats, in particular pedigrees, means that illegally importing cats is becoming increasingly lucrative for criminals. Cats Protection statistics show that 45% of the cats obtained in the past 12 months were pedigree; for the first time, more pedigree cats than moggies were acquired in a 12-month period. The Bill is a vital opportunity to put in place the measures to tackle pet smuggling that could not complete their passage in the last Parliament.

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking the volunteers across Cats Protection and at Edinburgh Dog and Cat Home for the work that they do every day to keep rescued animals safe? Does he agree that those charities need our help and support, and that the Bill will help to amplify the work that they do?

I will also put it on the record that I had two rescue animals—a cat and a dog—who both lived to 19 years of age. Sadly, they are no longer with us, but for the sake of Hansard I want to mention their names: Cannie and Roohi.

[Phil Brickell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about the critical work of animal welfare charities across the country. They can make such a difference.

Diane in Ladybridge emailed to say:

“This Bill is a major step forward in improving the lives of animals.”

She is delighted that it will make it

“much harder to exploit pet travel rules to illegally traffic puppies and kittens bred in horrific conditions overseas into the UK.”

She also noted:

“Dogs and cats involved in bad breeding—whether they’re used for breeding, or bred poorly themselves—don’t have a fair chance in life. They’re more likely to have health problems, and poor socialisation means they can struggle with life as a pet.”

I am really pleased that the Bill will finally close a loophole to address the issue of dogs and cats with illegal mutilations such as cropped ears or docked tails and help to bring down demand for those features. We have spoken about the social media impact. It is incumbent on us as parliamentarians and figures in public life to continue to drive public awareness about why those procedures are mutilations and the adverse impacts they have on the animals and, frankly, society as a whole.

I am really pleased that the Bill will make it much harder to exploit pet travel rules to traffic illegally puppies, kittens and ferrets bred in horrific conditions overseas into the UK. Sadly, these activities can involve gangs who are associated with serious organised crime, which I am personally keen on tackling during my time in Parliament. By bringing in tougher restrictions, we can protect animal welfare and also cut a source of criminal income—an issue that, one way or another, I continue to raise in this House.

While cats and dogs are overwhelmingly the most popular pets in this country, it would be remiss of me, as a northern MP, not to reference the humble ferret, mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Watford (Matt Turmaine) and for Northampton South (Mike Reader). Ferrets are a northern icon. On that topic, our other northern icons, Oasis, are today reforming for their first gig in 16 years. To conclude, having listened to my constituents on the vital importance of protecting animal welfare, it is fair to say that both they and I are “mad fer ret”.

Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Phil Brickell Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 4th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I rise to support the Bill, and I commend the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) for bringing it to Parliament.

I want to make some brief remarks about what is sometimes perceived as a tension between those who wish to responsibly enjoy the countryside, and both the economic toll and the harm done to livestock by livestock worrying. Since being elected to this place, I have been a strong champion for expanding responsible access to the countryside across England and Wales—my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) mentioned the Right to Roam campaign.

I commend the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, because this Bill shines a light on the fact that most of us who wish to go into the great outdoors and enjoy our wonderful countryside, whether that is in Cheshire or on the wonderful west Pennine moors in my Bolton West constituency, do so responsibly, but those who do not ensure that their dogs conduct themselves in a considerate manner will feel the wrath of these measures. I particularly welcome that, because there is a balance to be struck between farmers and those who look after livestock in the countryside, and those who want to enjoy our great outdoors.

With that in mind, I want to touch on a couple of points. On extending the provisions to include camelids, there are a number of alpacas and llamas at farms in my constituency, including Smithills open farm. Members may think they look rather incongruous on the great west Pennine moors, but I assure them that they are incredibly popular, both in terms of the opportunity to walk them around the moors and with school visits.

I want to touch on a couple of points that the Minister may pick up on, relating to the opportunities that present themselves, outside the criminal law, to push for greater responsible enjoyment of our countryside, particularly in respect of increasing investment in promoting awareness of the countryside code. I will read out some of the provisions in the code, to make people aware. I think they are principles that everyone in this place can rally around:

“Do not feed livestock, horses or wild animals…do not cause damage or disturbance…leave no trace…always keep dogs under control and in sight…dog poo—bag it and bin it…take your litter home”

and, most importantly, be courteous:

“be nice…share the space”

with others. That should be the golden thread that runs through all our time spent in the countryside.

It is worth me putting on the record that the UK ranks the lowest of 14 European nations with regard to nature connectedness and, out 15 European nations surveyed, the UK is 11th in terms of physical activity. So there is greater work to be done to provide access to nature, but also on enjoying it and breaking down some of the barriers to opportunity.

Nevertheless, I commend the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for bringing forward the Bill. I very much appreciate the concerns she has raised around livestock worrying; she has been a champion for that cause ever since she got elected to this place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

Like everyone who has spoken so far, I congratulate the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth). Much like the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady), Crawley is an urban constituency. On the plus side, I suppose that means I get to avoid the bunfight over who has the best rural constituency—we undoubtedly have the greatest urban constituency.

We are not necessarily known for our farms in Crawley—we have fairly tight boundaries around the town—but people are often surprised to find that we do have them, because the safeguarded land between the urban area of the town and the airport is currently only usable as agricultural land. We are not allowed to build anything else there. I need to take that up with Ministers in due course, in order to try to release it for much-needed economic and housing space.

[Phil Brickell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital to have farms in built-up settings in order to give a connection to people who perhaps do not have the good fortune of being able to get out into the countryside, to enable them to understand how crucial farming is to this country and also, frankly, so that they may enjoy livestock in a responsible manner?

[Peter Lamb]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Having any form of green space in close proximity is vital psychologically. We will be discussing the space industry soon, and research undertaken by those in the space industry shows the huge psychological boost that people get from being close to green spaces.

It is worth bearing in mind that farming is not necessarily the best representation of natural England. When we in this place talk about housing development, I worry because all too often people become obsessed with the notion that England is supposed to be a land of rolling green fields. The reality is that this country was densely forested, and substantial amounts of biodiversity have been removed to make viable areas that are now open green fields. In the Government’s housing programme, we should look at such areas as brownfield land, on the basis that they are not what natural England is supposed to look like. In many cases, new housing developments will have greater levels of biodiversity.

None the less, integrating farming alongside other forms of industry is an important part of developing well-rounded communities. I am familiar with such farms, in part because when I was a member of West Sussex county council many years ago—not enough years ago, given my experience of being a county councillor—we bought one of those farms. It was viewed as a fantastic idea, on the basis that the land would in due course be developed into a runway and we would make an absolute killing out of it. I regret to say that even if the development consent order came through right now, it would still be farmland, and it is not the site of the proposed runway. That is another of the county’s investments that has not really played out as planned.

Oral Answers to Questions

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I am happy to write to the hon. Lady in great detail and at great length, but it is not something I can explain in 20 seconds.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Following last month’s Supreme Court ruling about wild camping on Dartmoor, will the Secretary of State confirm whether he believes that responsible wild camping should be permitted in the other national parks?

[Mary Creagh]

We were delighted by the Supreme Court judgment on Dartmoor wild camping and we understand the calls to expand it. However, we have no plans to extend it, as it does need to be balanced with landowner rights and habitat protection.

Climate and Nature Bill

Phil Brickell Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie]

If the hon. Gentleman would have some patience, I am about to turn to the exact provisions that we take issue with.

The Bill states that it is

“to require the United Kingdom to achieve climate and nature targets”

and it calls for an immediate end to exploration, extraction and—crucially—imports of fossil fuels. That would involve not only laying off hundreds of thousands of workers and undermining our energy security, but shutting down our chemicals industry and putting at risk our ability to keep the lights on. The Bill would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to publish annual targets and bind the Secretary of State to take to take “all reasonable steps” to achieve them. As we have seen, setting arbitrary legally binding targets with no plan for how to achieve them is a mistake.

The Bill would also establish a climate and nature assembly to direct the Secretary of State’s strategy—a body that the Secretary of State would be legally bound to follow if any of the measures it proposed had the support of 66% of its members. Those members would be unelected and unaccountable, unlike Members of this House. That is not how decisions are made in this country, and it is not how decisions should be made. Laws and decisions are taken in this country by this Parliament, and are introduced mostly by the Government, who command a majority in this House. The Government are held to account in this House by elected Members, and we in turn are held to account by our constituents. We cannot outsource our responsibilities to an unelected, unaccountable and remote institution.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

The hon. Member talks about unelected and unaccountable organisations such as the assembly, but is that not also the case for the other place?

[Andrew Bowie]

I did not know it was official Labour party policy to dissolve the other place in its entirety—if it is, please correct me; I would be keen to be educated in that regard—but no, that is not the case. As the hon. Member knows, the governing party in the upper House is determined by which party won the democratic election and commands a majority in this House. That system has worked, and I believe it will continue to work well for many years to come.

Oral Answers to Questions

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

5. What steps he is taking to help tackle unlawful discharges of sewage into waterways by water companies.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

16. What steps his Department is taking to help prevent water pollution by utility companies.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)]

I welcome the new shadow Ministers to their place—as well, of course, the returning one. Under the previous Government, water companies got away with discharging record levels of sewage into our rivers, lakes and seas, leaving them in an appalling polluted state. That is why we are taking immediate action to place the water companies under special measures, with legislation going through Parliament right now that will ban the payment of unfair bonuses to water company executives. We have also launched a commission that will lead a root and branch review of the entire sector, so that we can clean up our waterways for good.

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Lady is quite right to be concerned about the state of the River Avon. We want to move towards a catchment-based approach to water, so we can look at all the inputs and be clear about how we can clean them up. Her point about monitoring will be considered by the commission led by Sir Jon Cunliffe. I hope that she and other colleagues will make their submissions to Sir Jon for his review, which is due to conclude in 2025.

[Phil Brickell]

I wholeheartedly welcome the Water (Special Measures) Bill as a package of reforms to end the systemic dumping of sewage into our rivers, lakes and seas by water companies, while huge sums are being paid out by the same firms to shareholders. However, laws are only ever as good as their enforcement, and effective enforcement requires adequate resourcing. Will the Secretary of State consider how the enforcement agencies might be self-funding to a degree, with money raised from fines levied on polluting water firms reinvested into the likes of the Environment Agency?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. He will be reassured to know that precisely the points he raises will be brought into law in the Water (Special Measures) Bill, which will soon be arriving in the Chamber, so that polluters will pay for further enforcement action. That way we have a virtuous circle to help clean up our waterways.

Rural Affairs

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his remarks, and I particularly welcome his warm words on cleaning up our rivers, growing the rural economy and investing in flood defences. My constituents in Bolton West are extremely proud of our rivers, streams, waterways and lakes. They bring life to our countryside, and play a crucial role in preserving our biodiversity and fighting climate change—a danger all too real, given the increase in flooding and wildfires on the moors in my constituency. With that in mind, I wish to focus on access to our waterways and our countryside.

I am sure that colleagues will agree that I have the pleasure of representing the most beautiful constituency in the country, with Rivington, Winter Hill and the west Pennine moors all on our doorstep. That is why I am proud to say that the Labour party has a long history and proven track record of giving people freedom to enjoy our countryside, including through the National Parks Act and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. Indeed, the House will note that 2024 is the 75th anniversary of this seminal piece of legislation, and that Labour Governments also introduced the groundbreaking Countryside Act 1968 and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. However, more than 20 years after the CROW Act was passed, access to nature is under threat.

The benefits of access to both the countryside and our waterways are well documented. Physical inactivity is associated with one in six deaths in the UK; according to the “Outdoors For All” campaign, it is estimated to cost us £7.4 billion every year. Obesity costs the UK £58 billion, and poor mental health costs the UK between £53 billion and £56 billion. That is why I welcome the Government’s commitment to get 3.5 million more people active by 2030 through their “Get Active” strategy and, likewise, their commitment to give the public access to green and blue spaces within a 15-minute walk of home through the environmental improvement plan, which is highly commendable. Currently, however, 19.6 million people do not enjoy that privilege. I draw the Minister’s attention to the “Outdoors For All” campaign, which is run by a coalition of 51 organisations, ranging from the National Trust and sporting national governing bodies such as Paddle UK to the British Mountaineering Council and the Wildlife Trust. The campaign’s excellent manifesto calls for an extension of the public’s open access rights to the countryside and to water.

When it comes to recreation, the UK is truly a pioneer both in and on the water. Indeed, 7.5 million people were estimated to have gone paddling in 2023. Millions more row, sail and swim. However, access to our nation’s waterways is woefully inadequate compared with almost every nation in Europe and around the globe. The current policy of pursuing piecemeal voluntary access arrangements is plainly unworkable, because a river might cut through thousands of properties. How can one authority be expected to negotiate simultaneously with thousands of landowners and on behalf of the public? How can local arrangements provide the same clarity that our rights-of-way network grants walkers, given that arrangements may differ from river to river, boundary to boundary, and riverbank to riverbank? With more people than ever paddling and swimming for health and wellbeing, we have to reconsider our approach. The Secretary of State has repeatedly committed to expanding responsible access, and the Labour manifesto commits to nine new river walks. I would very much welcome more information on those in due course. It is high time for a White Paper on access to nature, including on our waterways. I hope that the Minister will consider that, and I would be happy to meet him or her to discuss it further.

I am aware of intensive lobbying by some landowners who see access to water or the countryside as an infringement on property rights. To those people I say: these spaces belong to all of us. A strong code of responsible access—such as the paddlers’ code, developed by Paddle UK and Natural England—would mitigate harm and disturbance to our precious environment. After all, look at all the work that recreational users, including paddlers, swimmers, rowers, anglers and sailors, have done to campaign for cleaner water, to clear plastic pollution, and to tackle invasive non-native species. In many cases, recreational users are the custodians of our nation’s waterways. Our ire should be directed at those responsible for the industrial-scale pollution in the water sector, and for the systemic run-off of chemicals into our waterways.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend—like many Members across the House, I am sure—support the idea of a bathing status award for water quality?

[Phil Brickell]

Yes, I think there is considerable merit to making sure that not only our inland waters but our coastal waters are accredited with viable bathing status.

That brings me to my second topic. For years, under the previous Conservative Government, water companies have been pumping sewage into our rivers and lakes with little fear of consequences. We live in a country where parents think twice about letting their children surf, swim or paddle, for fear of them contracting all manner of diseases, some of them life-threatening, and that is frankly unacceptable. Surfers against Sewage has done tremendous work in holding polluters to account, and I draw the Minister’s attention to its “End Sewage Pollution” manifesto.

Since 2019, under the Conservatives, untreated sewage has been discharged into our waters over 1 million times, and that requires real punishment for those who flout the rules. To that end, I very much welcome the Water (Special Measures) Bill, which I hope will introduce new penalties for water companies and block bonuses for water bosses, who have all too often turned a blind eye to the damage that their firms have done to our waterways. To conclude, I ask the Minister for three simple things on behalf of my constituents: clean up our water; give us access to it; and invest to tackle flooding.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Independent Water Commission

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

That is absolutely the intention.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

As a whitewater kayaker, I spend countless hours on rivers and streams up and down the country, so I know that both the Environment Agency and Ofwat need to be properly resourced if we are to clear up the toxic legacy left in our waterways by the last Government. Can the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that the newly announced independent water commission will look at resourcing to ensure that the water firms responsible for polluting our waterways are held to account?

[Steve Reed]

The commission will look at identifying a model of appropriate and effective regulation for precisely the reasons my hon. Friend outlines.