Commons Chamber

Friday 28th March 2025

(began 2 days, 21 hours ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:35
09:36
None Portrait Division: That this House do sit in private.
-

The The question The question is The question is as The question is as on The question is as on the The question is as on the order paper. As many as of that opinion, say, "Aye." To the contrary, say,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lock Lock the Lock the doors.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order. Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order order. The ayes to the right zero. The noes to the left 44.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left 44. The ayes to the right zero. The noes to the left 44. The noes have noes to the left 44. The noes have it. The noes have it. Unlock. When you are ready. The clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

day. Water Bill Second Reading. Now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clive Lewis. I beg to move the Water Bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move the Water Bill be read a second time. I would also draw the attention of members to my register of financial interests. Around 50 years ago, Margaret Around 50 years ago, Margaret Thatcher's revolution tore up the rulebook on political and economic rulebook on political and economic management. She rewrote it with a single unwavering principle, that the pursuit of profit would serve the public good. Even when it came to vital public services. Even when it came to water.

We often say that society stands on the shoulders of giants. But giants also cast long shadows. And Thatcherism shadow looms start over our water system today. Whether we see ourselves standing on her shoulders, or trapped in her shadow, one thing is undeniable, she proved the world can be made differently. And if it can be made if any ones, it can be made is different again. That, as the brilliant anthropologist David Graham understood, is that hidden truth of the world.

It is something we create and can choose to create
09:52
09:53
Clive Lewis Portrait Clive Lewis MP (Norwich South, Labour)
-
-
For whom democracy supposedly exists. But that required something very difficult. It requires us to break free from the constraints of break free from the constraints of our imagination. To let go of the idea that this economic model is all idea that this economic model is all there is. Or all there ever could be. It saddens me to say but the be. It saddens me to say but the government's recent Water (Special Measures) Act perfectly exemplifies Measures) Act perfectly exemplifies this failure of imagination.

One of its leading proponents has a its leading proponents has a particular rhetorical flourish. They love to use this when dismissing calls for public ownership of water. They would say " I am more interested in the purity of our water than the purity of our ideology. " Madam Deputy Speaker, I love this quote. I love it because it lays bare just how deeply the ideology of privatisation and all that goes with it has embedded itself. So entrenched is it within our collective consciousness that we no longer recognise it as an ideology.

We no longer see it for what it is, a systemic exploitation of a common resource for private gain. Instead it has simply become the natural order of things. But how much longer can this go on? Since the crash of 2008, this ideology has been faltering under the weight of its own contradictions. Yet its grip on British politics remains vice like. Austerity, exploitation, corporate price gouging, still treated not as choices but as inevitability. Why? Because too many politicians on both sides of the house refused to contemplate alternatives.

For those on that side of the house, I get it. This is their ideology. They are defending their class. And I would imagine they would go further still if they could. But on this side of the house, we have no excuse. We should be standing up for our clerks, working class people, the public. Instead we wrap their ideology in a language of fiscal responsibility. Of economic prudence. Of stewardship, of the economy. But it is not fiscal responsibility when we balance the books on broken backs.

It is not stewardship when the ship has been sold off and the crew left to drown. It is not prudence, it is power maintenance. I give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hope the engineers can check the microphones are working. He the microphones are working. He mentions members on the site. There are far more of us on the side since July last year than there were in 2019 when a very different approach was taken in manifestoes. Does he was taken in manifestoes. Does he fear that the shift in tone that he is suggesting some of his comments is one of the reasons we did so

**** Possible New Speaker ****

badly in 2019 but so well last year? I don't. We have a distorted electoral system. Bring on PR because we had PR we would have had a different government in 2019 and most definitely in 2017. Sometimes politicians have to do what they believe to be right. And you have to lead from the front. And I think we should lead from the front was I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him four giving wafers that I compliment him on his bill. that I compliment him on his bill. To help his argument, there was overwhelming opinion support for public ownership of water in 2017

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and 2019, and today. I thank the woman before his point. Something I will come onto point. Something I will come onto later, I hope other members pick up on it. The fact that the public are on it. The fact that the public are way ahead of this house on the issue of public ownership is one of the reasons why so many people are reasons why so many people are losing faith in the two party political system. One only has to look at some Political parties, some of the mums who aren't in their place, the Reform Party for example, they actually have a policy for public ownership of water.

Yes, they will privatise the NHS, but they understand how popular this is. And they are ahead of the curve than we are. On the issue of water, yes, they are talking about, and opposite is from a seated position, I will say they are because whether I like it or not, Reform have a policy for water to be owned 50% by pension companies and 50% by the public. I'm companies and 50% by the public. I'm afraid to say as much as it grieves me to say it, that is the policy of public ownership.

They are populists and listening to popular voice. Let's make some progress. I will give way at a certain point I will also try and keep the volume down. The maintenance of a political and economic model that was never built to serve the public, a model decide to shield the wealth of asset holders. Landlords, shareholders, corporations, and yes, privatised water companies. But he was the great irony, the very greed, recklessness, and contempt of the water industry, the excesses, have cracked open the door, and through that crack we glimpse and opportunity.

An opportunity to shatter the myth of privatisations inevitability. To break free from the narrow sovereign posed roles that have caged our governments. To oppose its failures, to challenge its dominance, and above all to show this country there is an alternative. An alternative that is democratic, sustainable, and run in the interests of the many not the few. We can do it better. I give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable member is making a typically impassioned speech but the point that he makes about the point that he makes about the general public ring ahead of us as he says, where might the same public he says, where might the same public be when faced with the bill to bring in the nationalisation he is wedded in the nationalisation he is wedded in the nationalisation he is wedded to? Furthermore, if we seize it, the imprecations of the seizure will imprecations of the seizure will cause an economic collapse.

At what point will he take responsible tea for either of those scenarios when confronting a so-called public, as he says, that is ahead of us on this issue?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will obviously come to many of those points in my speech. Let me those points in my speech. Let me make the one quick point here which make the one quick point here which Don't believe in nationalisation, this is about giving the public a say over the water. It is about say over the water. It is about governance, standards,. I will carry on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on. Mr Lewis you made your point I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

don't believe I was making a point at all. My honourable friend made his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My honourable friend made his point. The clock is ticking. The point. The clock is ticking. The climate crisis is no longer a distant warning. It is our lived distant warning. It is our lived reality. Rising drought depleted aquifers, wildfires, systemic aquifers, wildfires, systemic collapse. These are no longer projections. They are the forecast projections. They are the forecast turned fact. Preparing for the future, adapting to what is now inevitable, has never been more The evidence is sobering.

UK water resources are under pressure from climate emergency and rising demand and population growth. Experts project England faces significant project England faces significant deficits as early as 2024 unless we act decisively. That is not the distant horizon. That is little over a decade aware but while the thread has grown, our resilience has shrunk. The climate crisis has intensified but our water infrastructure has been hollowed out and left to rot. In the 35 years before privatisation, almost 100 reservoirs were built.

In the 35 years since the transition, not one major English reservoir has been built. It gets worse. In that same period, private water companies have 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 the pipes leak, rivers chalk choke and the public be the place. How can we not be concerned putting it is a betrayal. The climate crisis as an existential threat to humanity.

It must be treated as an existential conflict. Failing to invest, polluting water, this is not just negligent but acts that actively undermine the national water security. In any other existential crisis, we may call that what it is, sabotage. In a claim of national peril, that has another name, treason. Let me tell you why When I served in Afghanistan, I experienced something utterly alien experienced something utterly alien Not for forgetting a water bottle but the deep physical body that they might not be enough clean water to get through the day.

In Britain, we have been blessed. Water falls from the sky and we joke about it filling the fields. It is part of who we are. In Afghanistan, there was no humour, all heat, dust, desperation. I saw children tracking for miles through the desert, not for food, not for money, but to beg for a clean bottled water. Once you have seen that, once you have felt that the, you can never take water for granted again. You can never again believe it is something we can waste and pollute or privatise without consequence and that is why I have brought forward this bill because anger is not enough, Oak Ridge, no matter how Oak Ridge will not fix the pipes, stop the sewage, feel the reservoirs.

We need a plan, a strategy, a future. We can do it better. My water bill delivers that. It sets out the high standards that It sets out the high standards that our country deserves and the improvements the water system desperately. There are clear and ambitious targets to stop the sewage and to restore water to high ecological and chemical standards and to deliver universal, affordable access to water as a basic human right. I write that we have never had before in this country.

-- a right. It demands a system not to extract profit but to adapt and build resilience in the face of climate change and find nature-based solutions that work with the environment, not against it. It increases representation for workers and the abilities on the boards of water companies and gives voting rights to employees and customers so that those who use and maintain the system have a say in how it is run. Water is not a commodity. It is a common good and those who depend on it and pay for it should help to government.

And thirdly, this bill lay the foundation for a democratic future. It establishes a commission on water ownership and to advise the Secretary of State on strategy and look at international best practices especially in OECD countries where public ownership is the norm, not the exception. Crucially creates a citizens' assembly to bring the public into the process to deliberate, debate, and decide how we can govern this most precious of resources. Because they care. How do I know this? I know this because a small fraction of them are up there in the public gallery today, having travelled from all over the country.

I know because of the thousands of emails that have been sent to MPs across the site and because I know that they will never stop campaigning until this injustice is resolved. Because they know that you do not protect something by selling it off. You protected by standing up for a involving people in its care and ensuring it serves the public today, tomorrow, and for generations to come. This bill, my bill, offers a pathway out of crisis. It offers control, resilience, and democracy.

It is not just about cleaning up our rivers. It is about cleaning up the system that allowed them to be polluted in the first place. Privatisation is not a problem, it is the problem. We can do it better. I can hear some on my bench is thinking that we have just passed... I can. I can hear you thinking. For my next trick, you are thinking, because We have just passed the because We have just passed the -- yes, we can.

It has -- yes, we can. It has been -- yes, we can. It has been going -- yes, we can. It has been going so well. It does not live up to what was promised. It certainly does not live up to its name. Don't get me wrong, it is a start. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to congratulate my good and honourable friend for making an excellent speech advocating public ownership of water, the opportunity to make things better. Would he agree with things better. Would he agree with me that mismanagement of water happened under privatisation and happened under privatisation and that is a huge indictment. In my area, bills are above inflation with huge dividends being paid by borrowing money. Should the borrowing money. Should the government not at the very least be looking at stopping the payment of bonuses and stopping the payment of shared the defence while the sewage

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pollution continues, rather than supporting mismanagement of the industry? I thank my honourable friend for the intervention and the question. I agree wholeheartedly and I'm about to come to this point in terms of to come to this point in terms of what they Water a Special Measures Bill does and it does address some of those points and, as mentioned of those points and, as mentioned and discussed, privatisation is the problem and it is a big part of why so much has gone wrong.

Let me make so much has gone wrong. Let me make The Water a Special Measures Bill does not live up to what is needed and it does not live up to its name. It is a start and I would like to praise my front bench and the honourable member, my honourable friend before me, could have done so much work in this area. Unfortunately, it is not a solution. Remarkably, the Water (Special Measures) Bill does not even define what clean water means with no targets, no standards, just vague intentions handed over to a registry system that has already failed us and the very companies who caused the mess in the first place.

This is not about better government are about the big fat humongous elephant in the room - who owns our water? If you do not deal with ownership, you cannot deal with accountability and if you cannot deal with accountability, you can forget clean accountability, you can forget clean water. We must go further. On clean water standards, on corporate accountability, and on what happens when companies fail. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my gallant friend for giving way on that point. Does he giving way on that point. Does he accept that in the Water (Special accept that in the Water (Special Measures) Act that there is increased accountability and many increased accountability and many companies are rewriting the articles of association to ensure they are not just accountable to the shareholders but also the customers and users of water, too.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and users of water, too. I thank my honourable friend for the point and I would say after 35 years of abject failure, it is too little, too late. My bill puts the final nail in this chapter of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

water system. I will give way again. I thank him for giving way and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for giving way and I commend him on the gallons of commend him on the gallons of passion and he is always making passion and he is always making waves. He criticises government legislation but does he think the current commission will do better

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with some of the concerns he outlines? Unfortunately, I don't. Again, the elephant in the room, who owns the water, has been ruled out of the operational process in terms of it can actually look at that issue. I have no issue with Sir Jon Cunliffe but let's not forget he originates from the Treasury and probably has a Treasury brain and is part of the reason for that economic orthodoxy, because we are in the place that we are.

I do not have so much confidence in the Cunliffe Commission. I have far more in the People's Commission on Water, being run by academics, and I will be interested to hear what they say. These are the reasons I brought forward this bill. The government's act does none of those things in mind does. Take just one example. mind does. Take just one example.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I believe Mr Lewis cannot hear the interventions because he is so low it himself.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

low it himself. I wanted to make progress. If a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wanted to make progress. If a company breaches the licence, with major sewage, you can forget major sewage, you can forget shareholder payouts and if you do it twice you are in the last chance twice you are in the last chance saloon, three strikes, you're out, licence terminated, on your plate, licence terminated, on your plate, and the price-gouging, asset- stripping, river-killing vultures will be rolled out without a penny in compensation and the assets they had been sweating for private gain The public realm.

If they start complaining about debt, don't worry, we will do a full audit of what they invested, what they racked up in that, what they paid out in dividends, and what they stuffed into executive pay packets. I have yet to see a single privatised English water company walk away with anything more than a well earned spanking and sharp your cut for creditors. Those assets will belong to the public once again and we will not pay one penny more than they are worth.

Where will be money come from? How will we invest in publicly owned watchable that the private sector? I can hear people thinking that. Let me tell you where it has not come from in the past 35 years. I will make some progress here. I will give way. I will tell you there... I am on a roll. It has not come from the past 35 years, it has not come from private shareholders. It has not come from long-term thinking.

It certainly has not come from some mythical well of benevolent capitalism. They have put in less than nothing. In fact, they have racked up £60 billion in debt, more than that. Thames Water has paid more than £7.2 billion in dividends since privatisation and is now, research £15.2 billion in debt and are now plugging the hole with a £3 billion emergency loan that will cost 10% interest, more than £500 million a year on interest payments, courtesy of our bills.

I will. That money will not build a reservoir and it won't fix a pipe. It won't clean the river, but it will keep a rotting system afloat a little

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He makes an impassioned case for public ownership, something which, public ownership, something which, in the right context, I'm sure members on all sides of the house members on all sides of the house will celebrate. Does he not agree on the point of that cost of finance to the public, that whilst there are the public, that whilst there are some serious indiscretions in parts of the industry around for example of the industry around for example Thames Water, that this conversation around the appropriate financing model would not be better model would not be better entertained at a time and the cost of capital in the private water industry is actually lower than that of public sector borrowing costs which of course we land in a very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

difficult situation. I thank him four was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him four was intervention. The lowest borrowing in the country without a doubt is in the country without a doubt is that public sector borrowing section. That is where the cheapest section. That is where the cheapest money can be borrowed from. This if money can be borrowed from. This if the private water industry which has had 35 years to sort this mess out was going to find investment, it is up to its eyeballs in debt. They are relying on by 2030, a 50% increase if you include inflation on our bills.

And that is in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. How can we justify that? The answer is we can't. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The day after this seizure of the public assets that he has described public assets that he has described comes with it the billions and billions of pounds of debt. What does he propose to do with that debt does he propose to do with that debt other than refinance it which is exactly where we are at with the industry requirements now, to refinance the debt to try and keep bills down. Instead he is advocating bills down. Instead he is advocating the public purse take on that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

private debt. I thank him for the intervention.Started at the beginning of my now seemingly rather long speech. I think I started by saying of the failure of imagination. Ask what Margaret Thatcher would have done in such a situation when she was faced with similar problems from her political perspective. She fought her way through it. She changed the very fabric of our economy and our democracy and our politics. And she made it work. We can do the same because the public are behind us.

They want it to work. I will make some progress. I will make some progress. Let's recap, I want to conclude if I can. That's money from Thames Water, that half £1 billion in interest payments, it will keep a rotten system afloat for a little longer. This is the myth of privatisation. The idea that the private sector will act in the long-term interests of the British public. Simply because it wants to turn a profit. It is preposterous. The state of our water is exhibit A Thames Water.

Where will the investment come from? Under public ownership, it will come from the only place it ever should have, from us. The public. And every penny of it will go back into the system, into the pipes, into the rivers, into the seas we swim in. And the water we drink. A direct relationship between what we pay and what we get. No offshore dividends, no bloated bonuses, no debtladen games, just clean accountable democratic water. When I was in Afghanistan every soldier had one critical duty.

Stay hydrated. To dehydrate was considered a military offence. Because you put yourself and your team at risk. If someone ran out of water, we didn't debate markets or metrics, we shared what we had. We had each other's backs. And as the desert dwelling person in a book believed, "A man's flesh is his own but the water belongs to the tribe. " It is time I water returns to the tribe. To the people, to the public. We can do better.

We must, and with this bill, we will. I commend it to the house.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the bill now be read a second time. Before I call
10:21
10:22
Carla Denyer Portrait Carla Denyer MP (Bristol Central, Green Party)
-
-
year. The water companies in England have incurred debts of more than £64 have incurred debts of more than £64 billion. And paid out £78 billion, note the similarity of those numbers, dividends since they were privatised, debt free, in 1989. And we pointed out that water companies we pointed out that water companies paid out £1.4 billion in dividends paid out £1.4 billion in dividends in 2022, even though 11 of them were fined in that very same year for missing performance targets.

Privatisation just isn't working. The experiment has failed. We are one of the only countries in the world with a fully privatised water system. Because it is a bad idea. Water is a natural monopoly, you can't choose, if you live in the south-west as I do, to be supplied by Yorkshire Water. Not that you would want to be but that is my point, when a provider provides a poor service, and charges extortionate sums, you can't take your business elsewhere.

There is no fair competition. You get what you get and you can't get upset about it. But we are upset about it. We are upset about it because sewage is being pumped into our water, and we are paying through the nose for the privilege all whilst shareholders

**** Possible New Speaker ****

profit. I thank the woman before giving way. This point about taking way. This point about taking business elsewhere. Do the Greens have a policy on how to perpetually nationalise an industry? One of the difficulties would be if you nationalise now, a future government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nationalise now, a future government can do something very different. So what is their position on this? Thank you for that intervention.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for that intervention. The reason I support the bill being brought by the member for Norwich South today is that it uses the tool South today is that it uses the tool of a Citizens' Assembly to ask the public how they think it would work and to explore different options for how to do it rather than a pre- determining the exact model. Although I will just clarify that I am that Green Party support public ownership of public services but that does not necessarily mean nationalisation.

Before the water companies were privatised, they were owned regionally, and I think that would be a sensible model list. I also think the Citizens' Assembly might look into other forms of public ownership like co-operatives for example. I will make some progress now rather than having a long back-and-forth. Paying with inflated bills, paying with our health, and now again we may be paying with our public money, as the government has said that it is ready to bail out Thames Water.

Thames Water was privatised in 1989 with no debt. Since then, it has racked up £14.7 billion in debt, and at the same time, and again notice dissimilarity of these numbers, it has paid out £10.4 billion to its shareholders. If that is not a scam, I don't what is. Privatisation was supposed to keep prices down but it has done the opposite. And more than one third of those bills are used to pay interest on debt or pay dividends to shareholders.

And now I know that the government is taking some steps to improve the situation. And I do absolutely welcome those steps as far as they go. But without even considering the option, without even looking into the possibilities of bringing the companies back into public hands, these issues are not likely to go away. Which is why I was disappointed to see that the government suppose it independent commission on the water sector regulatory system is not being allowed, despite being independent, to consider public ownership as one of the options.

Though I note with interest the establishment of the People's commission on the water sector which will look into this option is part of a broader scope.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is an area in which I would value her opinion. The aspect of a People's commission is my greatest People's commission is my greatest concern with this bill. I wonder if she could assuage my concern. I feel she could assuage my concern. I feel it impinges on the rights of this chamber is the prime expression of democracy in the UK, to set up an democracy in the UK, to set up an alternative representative body. It alternative representative body. It is a big concern for me I would have that anything she can say that would assuage my concern?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

assuage my concern? I think if honourable members in this house feel threatened by the setting up of the Citizens' Assembly in order to gather views, that may be an indication of the weakness of the democracy that we have in this place. I really value the contribution that the Citizens' Assembly can make. They have been used in other countries was that they had been used notably in Ireland. They are valuable, not a replacement for the House of Commons, but to add extra detail, and I think I'll remember is about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to chip in with a specific example. Would my noble friend with me that we have an example of the Citizens' Assembly on climate change Citizens' Assembly on climate change which was established jointly by six select committees of this very house

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a couple of years ago? I would agree with my honourable friend. I would also point to friend. I would also point to Citizens' Assembly set out by a council, and they are particularly council, and they are particularly strong for looking in-depth and detailed specific questions rather than broad topics of how the entire than broad topics of how the entire country is run. I don't see citizens' assemblies as replacing the role of the House of Commons supplementing it valuably. I will make some progress now thank you.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker,. Point of order Neil Coyle.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I ask your direction on this, this is a debate, there is no time limit. Is there any way of pressing limit. Is there any way of pressing an individual member to answer an individual member to answer during the debate or at least allow a debate to occur. I had a follow-up question that you're a woman that seems to have resisted being seems to have resisted being reluctant to allow. The honourable members point has been, he does know members point has been, he does know that this is entirely up to the member who is providing the speech that they wish to take or reject interventions.

Just as it is up to the member making interventions by the persist or reside from making

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that intervention will stop we will let the debate continue but there is time Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. The provision of water, one last time they were pushing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful. The reason I persist is the Citizens' Assembly has come up to my question has come up to my question previously was how does any government bind the future action of government bind the future action of another government, a democratically elected government to stop a Citizens' Assembly does not have the power to do that and I'm intrigued how the Greens believe Citizens' Assembly can bind future government of any little persuasion into not re-privatising the water industry?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. Of course the current government cannot bind future government on a cannot bind future government on a decision like that indefinitely. And I don't believe I wasn't suggesting I don't believe I wasn't suggesting that was the case. But given, as I pointed out earlier, that England is one of the very few countries in the entire planet that has a fully privatised water system, I sincerely privatised water system, I sincerely suspect and hope that once we suspect and hope that once we returned to a public system it would be more likely to stay that way as both elected representatives and the public would see that it performed public would see that it performed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One of the reasons why I think the issue of whether something can the issue of whether something can be taken out of public control or put back into privatisation of course that can happen but the whole course that can happen but the whole point of giving over control to the public is, if you think about the public is, if you think about the NHS, it is a public service. Any government in the post-war period could have taken the NHS back into privatisation.

Why didn't they? It privatisation. Why didn't they? It was so publicly damaging and politically destructive that they would not dare do it. Is what we would see and my honourable friend made that point. So, can I please remind people in the public gallery

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to remain silent. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the honourable member from I thank the honourable member from Norwich South for that helpful analogy with the NHS. Public analogy with the NHS. Public ownership is not just essential for social and environmental justice but social and environmental justice but also, in this situation, a pragmatic necessity. It makes sense and that is why almost everyone else does it is why almost everyone else does it this way. With water back in public hands, the government could invest hands, the government could invest in fixing the crumbling infrastructure and including up the rivers or stopping them getting into such a state of the first place, without haemorrhaging money to shareholders and spilling over into the salaries of fatcats.

People are struggling to put food on the table and heat their homes and we cannot allow water companies to contribute to the situation by hiking up the bills people have to pay. We will not stop sewage flowing into the rivers and profits into the pockets of shareholders without real change. There is an obvious answer where both people and the environment are winners. The government can and could bring water companies back into public hands, if it chooses, to end the profiteering, drive down bills, protect rivers, waterways, the coastal Lane, and to catch up with the public who, us the honourable member for Norwich South, as we ahead of the liberal else.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my
10:33
Meg Hillier Portrait Dame Meg Hillier MP (Hackney South and Shoreditch, Labour )
-
-
Speaker. I congratulate my honourable friend for introducing this bill. Whatever my position on the detail and of the history of what has happened, I think we would all agree how important it is that we have proper debate and discussion about water and I have the privilege of having served in the last Parliament where water and sewage discharge was a constant topic of conversation and it is right that we act and I am now proud to be in the part of government that has begun to act on the big challenges facing us with water.

I congratulate my honourable friend for the enormous passion he brings to all the issues that he cares about and nobody can say he is not passionate about what he is talking about and he's right to shine a light on the field use of the industry and the profits being made for people deal with issues. -- made for people deal with issues. -- We have got to go right back in time to fight the system was set up. It was designed when the companies were advertised to avoid taxpayer investment and get the private sector to pay but that meant the need for dividends and we have seen how that works.

My right honourable friend talked about the last Chancellor and two strikes and you are out and he seems to be suggesting that on the second occasion, the state takes the assets but the taxpayer would still pick up an enormous bill for that and it is important to reflect on the context we find ourselves in today, whether talking about investment in water, railways, 700,000 pupils at schools not fit for purpose, crumbling hospitals, including 14 built with reinforced diluted concrete which I visited during the last Parliament visited during the last Parliament and the need investment.

We need money in the voice and it is great the government is putting money into potholes but we need more than that. I am a cyclist and I am constantly breaking a spoke because of potholes. This is money hitting the pockets of constituents and it is not just me that had the problems and when I have had the opportunity to spend time in Northamptonshire where I commend my honourable friend who has fought a tough campaign. The council has been poor but having a proper management plan for the roads.

She has done excellent work in that respect, highlighting problems, challenging and looking at contracts from the council, and that has led to the announcement in the last week by the government about investment in potholes and they have taken the blueprint and are applying it to the country. This all cost money. We have got loads, railways, the water industry, schools, hospitals, entirely. We think this on the NHS have reduced for five months in a row. Constituents of mine were in desperate straits.

Anyone with money was being privately for healthcare. Those without that money were on a long, slow breathing list as -- waiting list as health deteriorated and we have to see that in the context of all that money. One year ago, I produced a list called 'The Big Nasties' and many of them remain including the fact we have not decommissioned a single nuclear submarine and that has to be done in money terms and we are now finding it hard to bring submarines into port to repair.

This issue has been left for decades and is for them to this government to resolve. I understand the first is being decommissioned thanks to a Labour Government being in power. We do not have space to deal with two diseases at the same time at the centre in Weybridge which is designed to deal with the most difficult diseases and they have to have special facilities so that no contaminants can escape. We would be in a catastrophic situation if we were had by two infectious diseases at once.

This was left by the last government and not dealt with for 14 years. Then there is Porton Down which was going to be moved and rebuilt in 2017. Some of the most difficult scientific issues which could have a catastrophic effect if not dealt with. There has been no movement at all again and it falls to this government. £700 million was spent with nothing achieved. This government has picked up the pieces.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for the powerful speech and intervention the powerful speech and intervention in the debate. There are a few things about the cost of this and one of them is the fact that we one of them is the fact that we would control the assets, which would come off the balance sheet, would come off the balance sheet, one mitigating factor. The second, throughout history in the post-war period, from issues such as Railtrack on coal, steel, civil aviation, the Bank of England, we paid less than market value.

I have explained at the beginning that this is about mindset and you can audit what they have taken out and what money they have extracted from the economy and then you can pay them an appropriate rate and return. It may well be that you pay them nothing but they may get something. Creditors might take a haircut but that is in our constituents taking a continuous haircut for their bills. Stick a mic I thank my honourable friend for that point and I can hear his passion and his helpful iteration of some historic examples.

I can also say that we must be clear whose shareholders are because it's often pension funds and there is a fiduciary duty of pension fund trustees to maximise pension income and if that does not happen, effectively the taxpayer picks up the tab. We also have others and we have the reality of privatisation which was there was a drive for shareholder society and we can argue about whether that was the right or wrong thing to do and I think we agree on many points on that but that is now the situation.

Earlier today, before the South was sitting, I was on a call about constituents who lost money and it was because of criminal activity by a fraudster in that case and they might have lost their life savings and people have invested, but the shares, and the ideas that these often humble people have used the money to buy the shares I'm sure they would require composition. As tempting as it might sound, if you were speaking in a student debating society saying to take it back and forget the impact, we cannot.

It is often on low paid, hard-working people who are also taxpayers and they would have a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

double whammy. I thank the Chair of the Treasury Select Committee for giving way. Thank you for mentioning the risk shareholders take when they make an shareholders take when they make an investment. We talk about privatisation and nationalisation privatisation and nationalisation but the alternative would be all the customers of water companies would then own and control the companies on your behalf.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on your behalf. There has been a lot of mention of hearing people think today because the honourable gentleman has anticipated my comments and I will move to some of my thoughts about how we might be able to move to coownership. We have seen too often dividends and bonuses that have been paid without investment in infrastructure and I think that is where my honourable friend and I would agree. We have a privatisation model that was supposed to deliver investment on the back of people putting in money for shares and in return for a dividend there would be investment.

We have not seen enough of that and what are customers under of that and what are customers under the rules are bearing a share of the cost. Thames Water has been a poster company for the problems and in Hackney the cost of bills are going up by over one third. In the last fortnight, I have heard from many constituents what it about water bills and we talk about money, millions and millions, but £100 a month is a great deal of money for many of my constituents.

If I said that in context for a moment, if I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, in my constituency, I have a number of fantastic street markets where you can buy fruit and veg at a reasonable price, clothes and underwear at a reasonable price, it is very lovely, Broadway Market, love it. Sourdough bread is about 5 pounds loaf and some constituents of mine do not have that left at the end of the month, let alone the. That is the margins they are working with and so what the cost is a significant issue and that is another reason I'm delighted to be here today, supported by colleagues of all parties, who want to talk about the challenges.

The nationalisation sounds good on the face but there is a hidden cost to those people who have bought shares in good faith and there is constant upheaval to turning around an organisation. Where would you get the people to run it? It would be likely to be the same executives, if they would accept a pay cut, to take it. People have spent a decade examining the work of Whitehall and the excellent civil servants and there has been some amazing work, and some that did not do amazing work with the Public Accounts Committee.

The idea you could find someone with technical and management expertise to run a major water company overnight is a talent. One of the things I'm passionate about is I would like to see in sourced services in hospital but after having had intense conversations about local hospital, the challenge is that you have not done something in the public sector for many years, it takes time to build up expertise to do that. Catering, if you do not cater well in a hospital, you can kill patients.

You must make sure you have the management structure in place to deliver and it is the same with water companies. It is not as easy as one day private, the mixed, national. The upheaval would be a mess. This government has begun to deliver that plan and are doing it in a measured way for the reasons I will outline. I will talk about government plans to improve the situation and then about the honourable gentleman's bill. I want to touch on the comments made by the honourable member for Bristol Central.

I'm interested in the passionate commitment. She has been elected, which is a privilege, as we all know, to represent constituents in this place. Months after election, she wants to pass responsibility for the difficult decisions to a citizens duty rather than taking decisions as an elected MP.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her for giving way because it is important to correct because it is important to correct because it is important to correct some of the issues arising from a possible misreading of the text of the bill. The section on the citizens' assembly on water ownership simply says that the ownership simply says that the commission must publish the recommendations of the citizens' assembly. It is not there this House assembly. It is not there this House will cure by delegate responsibility for making decisions about water ownership to the citizens' assembly.

ownership to the citizens' assembly. It suggests setting up structure which has already been used by this House to allow the general public to House to allow the general public to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My point is clear just as a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My point is clear just as a famous Mr Ratner talked about the price of a prawn sandwich in Marks & Spencer's and jewellery in his Spencer's and jewellery in his store, people do not want to be on the board of Marks & Spencer is to buy a prawn sandwich. They just want buy a prawn sandwich. They just want to be able to buy one. Whilst my political foundations are in devolution and neighbourhood structures, working and listening to structures, working and listening to people, ultimately we have to take this on to all of yourselves.

One of the challenges which I have been around for very many years, I'm looking at section 4 of the bill as your lady has highlighted. We can have this engagement Citizens' Assembly is lengthy, costly, and we know that not everyone attends the whole time. How would you select people? There are many challenges.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sorry... Interventions should be short. I would remind the house briefly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would remind the house briefly that all of these issues are very well investigated and understood. well investigated and understood. And this House has used this mechanism effectively prior to now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

mechanism effectively prior to now. In my experience 20 years in this house, once this has been used in 2019 by a selection of select committees, not by the government of committees, not by the government of the day. I am aware the first debates about citizens juries 30

**** Possible New Speaker ****

years to go also and there are many challenges to delivering on this. I thank my honourable friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for giving way. Does she agree with me that one of the concerns that that one of the concerns that citizens' assemblies have is one of gaining the confidence of the gaining the confidence of the public. You will often hear concerns when people see opinion polls and say I wasn't interviewed and therefore I have no involvement. therefore I have no involvement. There will be no power to compel someone to be on a Citizens' Assembly to how you have confidence in the body that any contains those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wobbling to take part? Absolutely. I think we would all agree that we talk all the time to constituents on doorsteps and public meetings, and it is absolutely a job. I say to constituents every job. I say to constituents every week on their doorsteps, I am here because I need your expertise, I can't do my job without you. But it is a very cumbersome task to be on the Citizens' Assembly. It requires the Citizens' Assembly. It requires people to devote a great deal of time and that is a certain subset of society that has the time to do society that has the time to do that.

Many of my constituents are working three or four jobs and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

struggling to survive and do not have the time to do this. Their voices need to be heard. I thank the honourable lady. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable lady. I declare experience in this in that I have set up through Herefordshire Council a Citizens' Assembly. Council a Citizens' Assembly. Process is used to ensure a fully representative sample will stop participants are paid for their time participants are paid for their time so that participants of all socio economic backgrounds can economic backgrounds can participate. Additional efforts are made to ensure that underrepresented groups participate. With the groups participate. With the honourable Lady acknowledge that such an institution might perhaps be more representative of the general public than this house in which two thirds of the MPs were elected by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

only one third of the electorate? We can have an endless debate,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We can have an endless debate, and I will be careful not to try a patient, but the difference between patient, but the difference between selecting people to the process that I am well aware of how that process works, paired with how our electro works, paired with how our electro system works. In the end we face our electorate afterwards and they can reject us. Many colleagues have been reject us. Many colleagues have been sacked at 4 AM on the television because the electorate rejected them because the electorate rejected them or their party, you do not have the same power over Citizens' Assembly.

But perhaps I should talk a bit more in detail about section 4 of the Water Bill as proposed by my honourable friend. It is within four months of being established the commission for water must establish a Citizens' Assembly on water ownership. This would consider different models and make recommendations and reforms towards

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ownership and governance. I thank for giving way. It is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank for giving way. It is patronising to suggest to my constituents that they would be guaranteed the same job after serving on the Citizens' Assembly. serving on the Citizens' Assembly. You cannot force or compel McDonald's to retain someone on a zero hours contract. But is it not zero hours contract. But is it not typical of the Green Party to shirk response ability to Citizens' response ability to Citizens' Assembly? We see this on housing, on wind farms, and on offshore and, shirking responsibilities in Bristol, Brighton, the east of England, so it is a classic similar situation?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree the point about job security, and many of my constituents worked three or four constituents worked three or four jobs and are struggling to survive.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to inform the house that that the Employment Rights Bill outlaws was 20 hours contracts and I think it is something that must have this house should constantly talk about.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about. Absolutely. It is another example of why it is good to be having a Labour government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my right honourable friend for giving way. Particularly friend for giving way. Particularly for highlighting clause 4A. I was disappointed at the response to the disappointed at the response to the member to my sincere intervention earlier. If the Citizens' Assembly came to a conclusion that was not for nationalisation, I would have to for nationalisation, I would have to ask people, would they agree with the Citizens' Assembly? In which case what is the point of this case what is the point of this house? Or would they ignore it in which case what is the point of the Citizens' Assembly?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is one of the challenges of the new setup this lengthy and expensive process and it doesn't expensive process and it doesn't necessarily hold any sway. I was going through clause 4 because as we are getting into the detail and there is an appetite to discuss this. If I could lay out before I take further interventions, the take further interventions, the Citizens' Assembly would support, sorry, the commission will sort the supports the work of the Citizens' Assembly, they must undertake a public consultation in which all individuals who use water and sewage services in England and Wales can participate.

Hallelujah to that, a strong well-founded consultation, we cannot go out to our consultations and knock on doors and ask people what they have to say. Most of us have got quite a strong indication of my constituents from a mailbox in our time on doorsteps, I haven't gone into all the issues of the waterways in Hackney which are appalling when it comes to sewage discharge. I think we need to make sure you have that public consultation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If the remember is so aware of the overwhelming public support for the overwhelming public support for public ownership of water as she has indicated from the level of concern in her constituency, I'm confused in her constituency, I'm confused why she is so dog it in her pursuit of continued privatisation?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of continued privatisation? I did not say I had overwhelming people saying they wanted public ownership, but they are saying there is a problem. They are saying you lot are in government you need to lot are in government you need to sort it out. Over the last 20 years I've been in this place, and in the last Parliament in particular there was endless discussion in this place about how to resolve this. And now we have a government activity tackle the things challenge.

I give credit to my honourable Friend across the house for engaging with this. She is aware of the issues partly because many of us across the house had lobbied her because a constituent of lobbied us. I don't there is a doubt about the problem, the issues about the solution. That we have a big public consultation, but that is to inform the work of the Citizens' Assembly, and part three of section 4 says the Citizens' Assembly must " Be composed of a randomly selected representative sample of users of water and sewage services in England and Wales, and consider any matters which the commission refers to about what ownership.

" I want to be clear that as a randomly selected representative sample of users and the bill is silent. I appreciate what the the honourable lady for Herefordshire has highlighted, in that there is a science to doing this, but this bill is silent on how it will be done.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable Friend for giving way. Returning to the point round the construction of citizens' round the construction of citizens' assemblies, I take on board the concept that has been used locally. When one has to travel 10 minutes to When one has to travel 10 minutes to a meeting on an evening after work, it is a very different order of it is a very different order of magnitude. One cannot intervene on magnitude. One cannot intervene on an intervention, I don't want to get an intervention, I don't want to get in the way of Madam Deputy Speaker.

The cost implications of asking members of the public to travel, to another point of the country, and I speak as someone, these things are inevitably in London. As someone whose constituency is 250 miles from London I would be concerned about members of my community being left out of such consultation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know it is Friday but you do not intervene on an intervention. Interventions are short not speeches.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

speeches. Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. I think honourable Friend makes vitally important point. We have seen from citizens juries including seen from citizens juries including in Ireland that people do drop out. Don't always attend because life Don't always attend because life gets in the way. That is why we are elected to make decisions, we are elected to make decisions, we are elected to make hard decisions and defence difficult issues. We can't make the world a land of milk and honey especially after the inheritance we received from the last government after 14 years of mismanagement.

We have been challenges and we need to tackle those. There is heavy pressure on citizens groups. Key thing, whatever the best practice, the bill does not go into detail on that. We cannot assume that the good practice that your ability has highlighted her constituency is necessarily what we plan let alone the challenges that other Honourable members have raised. The honourable lady for Bristol Central has also, I'm surprised that a member of her party is so willing to pass response with the over except I look at what has happened in Brighton.

When the Greens controlled Brighton council, I will put aside the rubbish collection and the infighting that went on but look at the issue with the tower that is now a tourist attraction in Brighton. 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. In the end taxpayers in Brighton were left £51 million out of pocket was leaving the council paying £2 million each year for the foreseeable future.

I don't need to take any lectures from the Green Party about how to manage public money because when they have been in power they can't do it. In one sense they want to pass responsibility to citizens theory rather than taking responsible for themselves. I've been diverted. Before I move on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is not just the Green Party that causes such significant challenges, look at the demands of challenges, look at the demands of the Green Party in Germany, on the then government to stop using nuclear energy, it has directly nuclear energy, it has directly contributed to the rise of Putin and of Germany struggling as a result. The Greens should not be trusted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with any economy issue. I will move on from the Green

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will move on from the Green Party because the subject is about the water bill. But I want to use a moment to talk about the challenges that we are seeing. Nobody would argue that there is not a problem that we are having to deal with. And I take my wonderful constituency of Hackney South and Shoreditch. In the River Lee which is an amazing resource which runs through my constituency but up to beyond London. In 2023, there were 1060 instances of sewage discharge into the river.

I don't have the figures for 2024 yet. That amounted to 11,592 hours of sewage from storm overflows. That is almost double the previous year of 2022 when sewage was discharged into the river for 5891 hours. So it has been getting worse. We have been raising it in this house and in the last Parliament not enough happens to tackle this and now that goodness we have a Labour government beginning to act and making sure that water companies are taking into account. There is a damning assessment of water quality in the river.

An overall quality rating of bad and with that ecological health which is a tragedy. We have worked so hard to get our waterways cleaned up during the run-up to the 2012 Olympics which was a major boost to East London and now we have the bad situation. On a hot sunny day, you see people swimming in the river and there is not a place you should be swimming. It is one of the most polluted rivers in the country and should be a blue line for East London is.

We need to get the cycle. Research by give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She is making an important point. Would you agree that there is an Would you agree that there is an issue relating to planning on this when there are too many paved spaces, too much run-off is not available so won't go off into the groundwater, we have to have a holistic approach which includes holistic approach which includes much more assertive having policies on drainage otherwise we end up with sewage in our rivers during periods

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sewage in our rivers during periods of heavy rainfall? I thank him for that. The right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for that. The right honourable gentleman and I served effectively together in Islington when he was honestly the MP but I was a junior counsellor for eight years. I know his passion in this years. I know his passion in this It is interesting. Some councils, I'm behind on planning issues and so people can do it in some areas but in others they have to put in blocks for the tyres of the vehicle that have drainage around that.

We have been involved in this, 30 years in my case and I bow to him with his experience. There are changes in the planning system that don't allow for that and I welcome government changes and we will see the full detail and I are moving to looking at this and making sure your building and resilience and there is small risk of flooding and we have to make sure we can manage some of that through mitigation and it's important to do that and if we do not do that, we talked about the River Lee, there is rubbish washed down from the streets because the water sweep sit down and many people from the canal are concerned about the rubbish that gets collected and the research shows the amount of faecal E.

Coli regularly extends beyond standards and I enjoy my constituency and sometimes we have to call oh problems and this is a real concern. My constituency is served by Thames Water and they discharged sewage into the Thames for more than 3000 hours and four years earlier it was just under 19,000 hours, 18,443. We thought that was bad and it has increased exponentially. It is 50% more sewage than 2023 friendly sewage was discharged for 196,000 hours. We are an international city in London.

It is unbelievable that the river is so dirty and we need to get this resolved. None of our rivers are considered to be in good chemical health and that means if the river in England contains chemicals that are known to cause harm. Figures published yesterday revealed untreated sewage including human waste, wet bags, condoms, were released into waterways for more than 2.6 million errors in 2024 and than 2.6 million errors in 2024 and in 2016, the comparable figure was 105,533 hours.

We are seeing deterioration and that is why we have to act and I look forward to hearing from my colleague on the front bench about this and to see what the government is doing to take action to tackle this. If sewage on its own is not a reason to look at tackling water, the problem of security of supply is a big concern. I had the privilege of being the chair of the Public Accounts Committee for nine years and was on the committee for longer than that and in 2020 we find there was serious risk the country will run out of water in 20 years.

We were not a committee intending to use properly but looking at facts and rebuild reports on data from the National Audit Office. We are five years into that 20-your program and challenge the government has to resolve this in a short time. 20 years is not long with such issues years is not long with such issues and security of supply is affected and there are issues with urbanisation, development, and there have been points made about how we deal with this in planning and is vital the water supply is built into developments for the new towns that are proposed that the housing developments we want to see.

Climate change is a factor and extraction water is removed from the natural environment. The issue of chalk in streams is an issue and we have been raping the environment for water companies and that must stop and we are seeing issues with data centres causing issues for water and we have to have a proper planning process for that. A lot of it comes back to the government stance on taking a proactive stance to make sure planning helps to deliver the solutions that we need.

In 2022, the government updated the strategic policy statement from Ofwat to include an objective to increase resilience in the long term. In 2024, the National Infrastructure Commission recommended the government and Ofwat that water supply be increased to meet demand for an additional 4 million L per day by 2020. These numbers are pretty well but there is a big challenge and the government will publish an updated framework for water in the summer of this year. My right honourable friend never gets a holiday with the work she has to do.

We have water but not in the places we need it. We have not built reservoir properties. As a child of the drought of 1976, I know, unbelievable, but it's true, I remember those days and the impact that it has on your behaviour when, in my case, not hosepipes in the street but many having to go to a standpipe in the street to get standpipe in the street to get water. Water is a precious commodity and we learned that then.

We were told not to leave the tap running finally cleaned our teeth and these are habits we should all keep to and I lecture people to this day. Running the tablets washing up, absolutely not. I learned water preservation habits and they have never left me and it was a crisis in 1976 and we are in 2025, facing many of the same challenges. And I do not envy my honourable friend on the envy my honourable friend on the challenges she has to address.

The Water (Special Measures) Act has been introduced and includes criminal responsibility. Failure, when something goes wrong, we used to call it public accounts can S-pen be asked who is in charge, responsible, and they all look at each other like this. Actually, making a criminal liability sounds like a lot but it is important and if you are being paid to deliver, you must take the responsibility and make sure you have systems in place in your organisation and if the buck stops with you, we take it seriously and criminal liability includes imprisonment for water executives when companies obstruct investigations and fail to cooperate.

There is a ban on bonuses for senior leadership unless high standards are met on protecting the environment, consumers, financial resources. We will talk more about Thames Water in the moment. It introduces automatic penalties for environmental pollution and make sure that the pollution is measured in real time because one of the things discovered in the last Parliament is that for all the talk about measuring sewage, it was not in real time with a lot of indicators not there and so it was easy to dodge the real numbers that we are saying exponentially increasing for sewage discharge.

The act introduces the Independent Water Commission which I welcome and the regulator and it was launched in October last year and is cheered by the former deputy governor of the Bank of England, Sir Jon Cunliffe. It is intended to deliver a reset and be the biggest reduces privatisation and this will be the backbone for discussions about the backbone for discussions about the future and this bill will not deliver the timeframe he would want it to and will take a while so let us take a measured stance and look closely at the independent commission, which I will watch closely, and I will ask questions about it.

I need to see the overview from every angle and I think Sir Jon Cunliffe is an individual who will make this very tough with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government on this issue. My honourable friend has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My honourable friend has criticised the proposal for a citizens' assembly and said we should have the confidence to make political judgements in this House political judgements in this House for the future of water companies. Could she explain the is between five she supports an independent five she supports an independent water commission but does not support the proposal for a citizens' assembly?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

assembly? I will not repeat all of the issues about attendance and difficulty in achieving the difficulty in achieving the citizens' assembly but this is someone being paid to do the job and often people are not given the right time to devote to it and then there is access to technical expertise and data and I spent a decade looking at this and how information is collected and has the expertise to analyse and I fought with the National audit office for a long time and I know the expertise that goes into this and it is intense and immense, especially dealing with money and water.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will be very brief. There is a crisis of democracy and what my crisis of democracy and what my honourable friend mentioned is that they can have the technical support they can have the technical support and capacity in a citizens' assembly and capacity in a citizens' assembly and we give the boys to the public but instead we have decided to give it to Sir Jon Cunliffe who is a it to Sir Jon Cunliffe who is a lifelong insider in the Treasury working in London who will make a decision based on their interests.

decision based on their interests. Can we not see that the problem and the lack of confidence the public have about democratic decisions being taken by people like that. Speak I think he has been particularly personal approach Jon Cunliffe and the point is he will not be making the decisions and, just briefly, time is marching on, there are six key areas where the commission is looking for views and it is not just Sir Jon Cunliffe and I will rattle through them.

The strategic manager of water, the overarching regulatory system, economic regulation, water company ownership models, asset belt and supply chain. Each has a degree of technical challenge which means he will be seeking what any of us can put and there will be a lot of technical experts and he will need to input VAT and ministers will have to accept what he says and you going to that in more detail, of course she has the power, she is the Minister, and she can seek further information and I'm aware this could be a problem but I think this is a thorough approach and after all these years of privatisation it is right that the recent extensive challenges around sewage discharge in particular, it is easy to think you can rush in and sort it out but it must be measured and be alkylated to make cheese tomorrow but, give us, and that looked at failed projects for over a decade, if you rush in, you can risk further failure.

I will not take up any more time. Thank you very much.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jeremy Corbyn. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I start by congratulating
11:13
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP (Islington North, Independent)
-
-
Speaker. I start by congratulating my good friend, the member for Norwich South, and his passion, determination and knowledge and I'm grateful he mentioned the late great David Gray who was a good friend to us was an amazing man and philosopher, taken too soon, and his family would be chuffed the Member for Norwich South included him in the speech of something so fundamental as the right to fresh clean water for all of us. This bill seeks to do that, recognising that water is an absolutely essential basic need.

Therefore, something that is so universal and so essential, surely, it ought to be completely in public hands. Most countries around the world do not even consider the idea of privatising water and saying it is a public responsibility to ensure you conserve water and provide clean and safe water for everybody. When the government of Margaret Thatcher and others privatised water in the 1980s, many of us strongly opposed it. I think I'm the only member that had the privilege to vote against privatisation at that time.

We predicted that it would lead to a rip-off of the public sector, asset stripping of the land and other resources that water boards had built up, and they also pointed out that the water infrastructure that we enjoy, the reservoirs in Wales, Scotland, all over England, the piping, the sewage works, all the other hugely complex infrastructures, all, for the most part, were built by public enterprise and public investment. We all applaud the work of Basil Jet introducing the sewage system for London but that was done by Victorian investment in a public structure to bring about the proper treatment of sewage and water to provide clean water for the people of London.

Can't we just be proud of public investment that brought about the water system that we have got and then recognise that since 1989 when water was privatised and the bill went through, the member pointed out, £72 billion has been taken out in dividends by water companies. That amounts to £2 billion a year not invested in water, not invested in new pipes, not invested in protecting the system we have got. These profits are extraordinary. The Member for Hackney South pointed out the levels of pollution flowing into rivers now and I cannot get my head around the idea that 300,000 hours of sewage is pumped into the Thames in the last year alone, and add that to other rivers such as the Mersey, the trend, all the great rivers around the country and then you realise the scale of the problem we are dealing with and also belies what happens to that, it goes into the sea and that comes back in fish, polluted water.

It does not stop at the end of the river mouth but goes into the oceans to create for the global water pollution. Surely we can do much I welcome the honourable members bill. I invite members to look seriously at clause 1 and because two of this bill. Clause 1 sets out the requirements on the Secretary of State. Requirements to look at issues of prioritisation investment, collaboration with local authorities, use of natural techniques, measures that require local authorities to take into account the need for conservation, and so on.

All incredibly sensible measures that can only be delivered by public authorities. Privatised water companies do not have their topline of conserving the natural world, the environment. They have as their topline, their bottom line, their every line, the profits they their every line, the profits they can take out of it. pleased nobody tell me that the money that has been paid out in dividends has been reinvested in the British economy. No, it is in tax havens all over the world.

We are subsidising tax havens all over the world on the back of our polluted and privatised water industry. The other section of that member's bill is that Commission on Water. I think that is a fascinating proposal. He talks about a commission of representatives, the water companies privatised at the moment, representatives of unions in the water industry, environmental conservation groups, water users which would be local businesses, local authorities. I support public ownership of water strongly. But I don't envisage a sort of national water board where the Prime Minister as a gift to his friends put them all on a nationalised water industry.

So we have the British water board. No, what I would like to see is the existing river basin management system so you have management system so you have Thames, Seven Trent and so on and then you have the management of it through commission which includes the workforce, the trade unions which includes all the local authorities in the area which includes local businesses which they are using water as well as supplying services locally. And you have others that can be appointed from elsewhere.

So you have a public buy in to the structure that you have got which would give us a much better system and a much more democratic system. I urge members to look with some imagination at what the member has put forward. If those that say we can't possibly bring this into public ownership because it might cost, well, the 1945 Labour government started by nationalising the Bank of England in 1946. It went on to bring many other industries into public ownership, and even the Ted Heath government in 1971 brought Rolls-Royce into public ownership and created Rolls-Royce 1971 Ltd because the company was failing.

The share price that was agreed on was set by Parliament, it was not set by the market in all those cases. We

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can do the same with this. I thank him for intervention. He and I stood on a manifesto of public ownership of utilities and water ownership of utilities and water companies in 2019. It cost me my job and the public decided to give and the public decided to give Labour the worst electoral thumping in our history. Lee takes a response ability for that? Does he reflect on ability for that? Does he reflect on what he's advocating now has already been rejected by this country?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

been rejected by this country? I thank the member for that incredible friendly and helpful intervention. I am most grateful for him and the collegiate way in which he put it forward I could not have put it better myself. Let me say this, that manifesto included public ownership of that, and yes, other services as well, for a reason. The reason that those industries needed to come into public ownership was there failing. That manifesto individual policies were all well in that plus category, over 70% supported public ownership, it might be uncomfortable for him to understand this, but actually the Labour Party in 2019 received more votes publicly nationally than it received in the recent general election.

With an electoral system that is unbelievably unfair that brought about an enormous majority on a very low level of the total vote. We can all play numbers at this. I don't resile from what was in that manifesto because it was put there by people who worked in the industry, the GMB and other unions, took part in the consultation with the policy on water. I urge the member to look with some interest at the bill put forward by my friend the member for Norwich South and recognise this as an opportunity to do something different.

There's been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing about a commission or Citizens' Assembly. Why is everyone so scared of a Citizens' Assembly? What is the big problem? What is the big problem with it? Is it something in your head, what is going on? Why would you be so worried? Citizens get together, I will go to him first then you, they get together, put forward a proposal, don't have to agree to accept it. Does not take away the powers of Parliament. It gives an opportunity for randomly selected ordinary citizens to put forward a point of view.

A lot of that was done in Scotland when he talked about devolution. It has been done in other places. In Chile it was done to develop a new constitution, some of which was ultimately rejected on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

referendum. Does it take where the principal? No opposite. I thank the member for giving way. I have not yet had a response from anyone in this house to the legitimate concern that I have legitimate concern that I have legitimate concern that I have around regional variation, he is a member in Islington, London, where a lot of meetings such as this one are held. I'm a member for eight said held. I'm a member for eight said which would require a lot of travel.

How would he suggest dealing with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the lack of composure that regional variation in Citizens' Assembly involvement? Since he used to live in Islington himself he is aware how great the connectivity is. Obviously we live in a country where London, the capital, is in the south-east. Maybe not an ideal geographical location at the gate will change any time soon. If you have a national commission then you have to meet somewhere. Doesn't have to be in London. Do you have to pay the cost to people getting those meetings? Yes of course.

I would envisage a more localised form of consultation through the regional water areas such as Seven Trend, such as Humber and so on. I think it would meet the concerns he legitimately raises about over centralisation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for giving way. Does he not see an inherent contradiction, I'm not against the principle of citizenship assemblies, principle of citizenship assemblies, but the principal is that it needs to be formed by Parliament if I to be formed by Parliament if I confirm. Secondly does not see any inconsistency between the party that has a mandate for delivering nationalisation with then heading that over to a Citizens' Assembly for deliberation? Does he not see for deliberation? Does he not see there is an inherent contradiction there is an inherent contradiction between them? Or, I think it shows mature politics that you say this is the objective we have got public ownership, we want you to consider what the best form would be, what the best structure would be.

And it could be people so they don't agree with it at all. Then you have to discuss it and debated. Parliament obviously has to make the decision. But surely I know everyone in the house is absolutely brilliant and the intellect is superb and the knowledge is amazing, and they are infallible in all the judgements they make. It is just possible there are some people who are not members of Parliament that also have enormous knowledge, enormous experience, enormous ability, and maybe we should be listening to them as well.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for giving way. How long roughly does he think it would long roughly does he think it would take to make sure that those citizens are skilled up to citizens are skilled up to contribute effectively? And for that full consultation that he has talked about to take place? So precious about to take place? So precious about the previous intervention from Bury North, I would do him a favour Bury North, I would do him a favour by pointing out the bill requires four months to report.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

four months to report. Some people would not require any training at all but others may well force I think this is actually more a question that should be put to the proposal of the bill rather than the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

member for Norwich. Can I make a more general point. This is the place, was the if this This is the place, was the if this bill went to Committee stage, we would look in far more detail. A big would look in far more detail. A big part of this bill is about the part of this bill is about the direction of travel we are going. It's about tackling a crisis in democracy, about trusting our fellow citizens to have a point of view, and they may want guidance from and they may want guidance from experts to make a decision.

The point I would make this, when the founders of the Renaissance sat down, or the founders of capitalism sat down, do I think they knew that capitalism would end up like this?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No, this is about heading in a certain direction. It is about having some imagination. Interventions should be short.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Interventions should be short. Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. I thank the member for that helpful I thank the member for that helpful reply to the member for Bermondsey. I'm doing my best to facilitate the I'm doing my best to facilitate the bait. I hope you will appreciate the congenial atmosphere I'm trying to create. I don't know if it is create. I don't know if it is working. Thank you very much indeed. I want to finish a couple of points.

This country now suffers serious flooding almost every year, really serious flooding. All of us have experienced the pain constituents face, and indeed other space as a result. In part, but not all, of that and what about by unusual weather patterns and excessive levels of rainfall. We also need to think seriously about natural river management, natural front prevention. That is specifically in his bill. I think that is very important. If you take for example the city of York, it is a confluence of rivers, it is in danger of flooding, it has a ways been in danger of flooding because it has got rivers flowing into it.

There is a combination of solutions. One of which is, yes, the flood defence was, the concrete barriers and so on to protect the central part of York from flooding. But it is also management what you do upstream. If you deforest further upstream, if you built on floodplains, and you prevent the river following its natural course, then you end up with flooding, so there are lots of quite small scale natural defences one can put against flooding. I don't build on floodplains, i.e.

Have rivers meandering rather than flooding in straight lines. I.e. Letting dams be built on streams and so on. There are a whole lot of solutions all of which add up to something quite valuable and quite good. That will be thought about my imagination. Farmers in Shropshire for example promoting exactly that kind of solution. Likewise, what happens in another river with flooding has partly resolved by the work of the Environment Agency in recreating peak box up in the hills.

If you have a water company that has the sole interest in making money out of the water industry, they are not going to be interested in that. That is why it is the public as a whole that must have a voice. And that is what this bill does. The levels of pollution are truly shocking. The sewage that flows in, and a danger to all of us. So the water we drink is not pure, it is not clean, because there is a limit to how much you can do on scrubbing of water to make it clean.

We end up drinking all kinds are found things in our water not least the microplastics that exist. Every day I walk up Seven Sisters Road and every shop has a great stack of plastic bottles of water outside the shop because people don't trust the water. Would it be nice if we totally trusted our water didn't feel the need to endlessly buy plastic bottles of water to keep us going through the day? Last Saturday, I took part in a local people's forum in Islington North.

We invited people to come to North. We invited people to come to The hall was full and it was followed online by people. We had two excellent people speaking, from we own it, and friends of the River Thames. They both spoke with passion, knowledge and interests. We through the questions over to discussion and asked each table to come up with their own ideas. The commonality was clean water, ownership and control, the cost of water and their anger and irritation that Thames Water was my lack of investment in the pipe network, lack of receiving of the Victorian mean in many places, so we have had flooding on multiple rows in the flooding on multiple rows in the recent past.

-- Victorian mains. And a sports centre near where I live was flooded out and it is now 2.5 years later that they are just completing the restitution works for the damage that was done. That was the responsibility of Thames Water the responsibility of Thames Water in not investing in the network. And the short-term, waste of money, digging up short sections of road, replacing the pipe, filling it in again and coming back next month to dig up a bit of road 100 metres away to do exactly the same thing.

We need a more coherent and comprehensive approach to it. So, the bill today that the members forward, gives us the chance to do something better and do something different. Mekelle water a public asset, public resource. Take it away from those who have done so much damage to it. And instead let's do something better and say we will provide for all of the people in this country good quality clean water. We will stop polluting rivers and seas and we will have a river basin management to ensure that flooding, you are not going to end it completely, but at least under control through natural as well as other means.

Ending waste and investing in a sustainable future

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for all of us. That is what our builders today. There are a lot of members who want to contribute today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

want to contribute today. Can I first of all congratulate my honourable friend on his bill and my honourable friend on his bill and the passionate speech he gave, no the passionate speech he gave, no one can be in any doubt of his commitment to this cause. Also, commitment to this cause. Also, struck by as I was his comments in his own windup, just to thank him for his service in Afghanistan and how elegant in his speech, drawing how elegant in his speech, drawing on that time, it is frequently overlooked to have such service in this House and I thought it was a powerful moment in his speech to combine his service with the argument he was making.

I congratulate him on that. I do welcome the opportunity to speak in this important and timely debate, just hours after learning yesterday
11:34
James Frith Portrait Mr James Frith MP (Bury North, Labour)
-
-
the 3.6 million hours of pollutant being discharged into our waterways being discharged into our waterways yesterday. The condition of our rivers and seas and the system that rivers and seas and the system that governs them does demand our national attention but conversations national attention but conversations around this being about a lack of imagination when a record in imagination when a record in government already has begun to grasp the very challenges that we have all described, we all have all described, we all understand we are all overwhelmed with contacts made by our constituents on the issue and quality of water.

That is that a distant, arm's-length system has left as needy in pollution and water companies are up to their next on it. We do need to continue forward with the mandate given to us at the last general election to tackle this issue. It is not just a policing issue either, it is symptomatic of our crisis mode Public Services, the emergency nature of Public Services, that even getting the attention on issues like flooding, river dredging or accessing the basic expertise feel like a game of cat and mouse with these organisations, whether it is the Environment Agency ducking meetings, United Utilities or our own utilities branch in respective areas, it is eternally disappointing how lacking accountability these organisations continue to be.

The politics, the power of being a good customer service organisation, not just being an accountable constituency MP, turning up, taking on board concerns. But even when a local MP rights to these organisations, to receive non- responsive or a failure to respond to issues at hand, we need to bear down on these organisations and get the best for our people. It is missing from so many public service providers that mentality, we need to instil a sense that these providers are accountable to us, that we determine the nature of their work and the outcomes we expect.

Of course they are stretched and under pressure. We have all rehearsed inheritance the Labour government has received, but often it is a culture of avoidance, obfuscation and ducking responsibility. No more is this apparent than in a sector is this apparent than in a sector charged with safeguarding, it is a lived experience of communities, in Bury North we know this failure, the river was the most dumped in river last year. In 2023 United Utilities was responsible for 11,974 sewage spills.

An average of 32 every single day. It is not just a staggering, it is shameful. It is barely farther mumble to think of their state we are in. But it is also personal. It is environmental, it affects our families. I have walked those riverbanks with my children, warning them not to go near the water, for a variety of reasons, but now also the pollutant level. I spent many a Sunday afternoon encourage them to stay out or encouraging other bulls pools -- people's families to stay out because of the pollution.

The pollution is a blight on our community and direct threat to our health and wellbeing. It is not just a statistic, it is a scandal. A national scandal, another day, another national scandal. It is barely believable that it has been allowed to get on this far.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does he agree with me that one of the under recognised impacts of the under recognised impacts of sewage pollution is the huge impact this has on the tourism industry in this country and our ability to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this country and our ability to attract people to this country and spend their money here? Absolutely right. My honourable friend makes an important observation, in the country Park I am referring to, the town is doing its utmost to make it a jewel, place its utmost to make it a jewel, place to visit, destination to come to. We have very little say in the quality of the water that runs through it. Whilst I will engage with the honourable member's proposals and honourable member's proposals and , have environmental protections and better oversight, I believe the government is well underway on that focus.

I remain focused on communities like mine, what they need now, which is urgent, decisive action. I look forward to comments on what goes next. That has included the banning of bosses bonuses and mega payouts after decades of underinvestment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree with what using about levels of pollution. Does he really levels of pollution. Does he really think that United Utilities reflect a proper organisation to carry on supplying water? Doesn't he think

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supplying water? Doesn't he think someone else should be doing it, like us? I was not suggest that either he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was not suggest that either he or I should be in charge of the or I should be in charge of the water in my constituency. We do need severe automatic fines for illegal sewage charges. There has been real time monitoring, use for campaigning activities that are within both parties here existing, as well as the formal observations that we get, the updates yesterday I referred to. Criminal charges for water companies executives who have overseen law- breaking are stripped of our environmental consumer standards.

It brings some imagination itself to put public service first, to say public ownership to everything without the question of who pays, who takes the debt thereafter is not some kind of beholden imagination, it is a failure to answer the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

challenge, the question. I want to recognise those who have worked. The honourable member expressed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable member expressed concerns about how it is paid for. Is he aware of the special administration regime for water companies that was brought in last year and would substantially address

**** Possible New Speaker ****

year and would substantially address these issues? I am aware of special arrangements, of course. That has applied historically across many of our former nationalised or utility our former nationalised or utility organisations. The clue is in the term special, which should not be term special, which should not be the go to, it is under extraordinary circumstances. We do not agree on that. I also want to recognise those who have worked so hard to raise the alarm, campaigners like Feargal Sharkey and Labour's own environmental challenges and others.

Campaigners joined me in Ramsbottom Campaigners joined me in Ramsbottom last year with local residents to shine a light on this crisis. Fergal has been an advocate for clean water and has not hesitated to call out the water companies and call for accountability. His support speaks volumes about the urgency of this fight. We shape the future of water governance, whether through regulation, strategic oversight or questions of ownership, it is vital we never lose sight of the people and places affected by.

It is not an abstract issue, it is about families in Ramsbottom and Radcliffe, about children being told not to play by the river, about a basic right to water and a functioning and fair system that protects it. Will the Minister join my efforts in helping register areas of the river in Bury North as an area of natural beauty so it might secure the protections so it might secure the protections Matter deserves. We are acting, but letters continue, I look forward to the Minister's comments on what comes next in this debate.

We know it to communities, our children, generations that follow, to deliver a safer and cleaner future that they deserve. deserve.
11:44
Ellie Chowns Portrait Ellie Chowns MP (North Herefordshire, Green Party)
-
-
I am delighted that we are having this debate in the House today. Clean water is a subject very close to my heart. As representative for North Herefordshire and to their constituents in my area because the condition of the rivers has caused terrible damage to the local ecology and the local economy. I draw the House's attention to my role as coach on the APPG I established on water pollution. These issues are crucial. I want to start with a couple of comments reflecting on the debate we have had so far and then go to the three points I want to talk about in my comments today.

The honourable member, one of the honourable member said we should not do anything in a rush. I feel it is clear that there is nothing in this bill that is a rush. What is that in the bill is a considered approach to tackling what is a very complex issue. There has been some debate today about the potential to use citizens assemblies is one component of addressing this. Some of the comments and interventions have perhaps been rooted in a misunderstanding or lack of engagement with the concept of citizens assemblies.

The one I refer to that was set up jointly by six select committees of this House was held in Birmingham, not London, and partly online. Travel and participation expenses were paid. Full attention is given to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

participation. On the point of travel, Birmingham is more difficult to get to from my constituency than London. to from my constituency than London. I do not believe it is the specific geographic place, it is how you get geographic place, it is how you get people from all corners of the country together to make sure we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

country together to make sure we I invite him to read up on how citizens' assemblies work. Participation is facilitated for all people, about the time commitment in people, about the time commitment in the case of the one established rigorously by this house, it was three weekends in Birmingham. These are not huge moments but valuable mechanisms for ensuring the public have the time to consider an issue in depth. I want to raise three points in my comments today on this important bill before us.

I could not agree more with the member for Norwich South that privatisation for water has been an absolute disaster. We have seen soaring bills, soaring executive pay, soaring dividends, soaring siphoning off of finance out of our country into the pockets of private interests, while at the same time our infrastructure has been crumbling, our rivers have been becoming more and more polluted. It is a national disgrace. It is long past time to resolve that. And together with my colleagues in the Green Party, I do believe public ownership is a core part of the solution.

Not the only solution, because we have to ensure this water system is adequately regulated. So that whoever is in charge, they are sticking to the rules. They are not making profits on the back of pollution, they are not pumping sewage into our rivers. That is a fundamental essential.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

How is the honourable Lady proposing to pay for the running of the water. We all agree with the the water. We all agree with the problems, where would you get the money from in the current climate to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pay for this. I refer her to my previous comments about the merits of citizens' assemblies to to consider citizens' assemblies to to consider the detail of this over a period of many hours or our manifesto. Moving many hours or our manifesto. Moving to my second point, about the systemic challenge of planet change. I am really glad some honourable I am really glad some honourable members have mentioned this, and that it features in the text of the bill. Because, as the honourable member for Norwich South said, when there is too little water it's a huge problem.

When there's too much water, it's also a huge problem. And this is increasingly a problem. I've spoken a number of times in this house already about flooding in my constituency, climate change is making these challenges more frequent and more severe. So any bill that tackles issues around water, I think it needs to tackle not just how the water industry, water supply and sewage are addressed, but also how climate change and its interactions with water are addressed. I am pleased this is mentioned within this bill.

There is another topic that is mentioned perhaps somewhat briefly within this bill, the one that is perhaps even closer to my heart and certainly close to my constituency. And indeed, as I put my hand to my heart I feel the jewellery and wearing which represents the River Wye, I wear it to my heart. Pollution is the elephant in the room, I think, in the way this issue is being tackled currently. Because pollution comes not just from sewage, it also comes from agricultural run-off.

In my constituency nearly of the pollution is from agricultural run- off. For more than five years we've had a planning moratorium, across almost all of my constituency with devastating economic effects. Tackling the water industry won't address this. Indeed, the majority of my constituency is served by the only non-profit water company in the UK. The problem we are facing is around pollution. And I do find it disappointing, even distressing, that so far the conversation about water in this house has focused, rightly, on sewage but not sufficiently on tackling water pollution.

Because as DEFRA figures themselves said Andy audit committee said in its report not so long ago, actually half the problem is from agricultural water pollution. Slightly more of our waterways are in bad condition because of agricultural pollution rather than sewage pollution. This is an issue we need to tackle working together in concert with farmers. We need to support farmers, which is why I'm so devastated that the direction has been arguably wrong in recent months. And I'm particularly upset months.

And I'm particularly upset that just a couple of weeks ago the Sustainable Farming Incentive was taken away from farmers without anything in place to replace it. We need a government that works with farmers, that supports them to transition to nature friendly farming so that we can produce -- reduce the agricultural run-off that is having such a devastating effect on our waterways. And it's vital government has this key role to play in leadership. It's essential to tackle the failures of the privatised water industry.

It's essential to tackle the outrageous volume of sewage overflows into our rivers. And it's also essential to tackle agricultural water pollution.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could I take her back to the question of farming pollution. Does she feel there are too many she feel there are too many pesticides used in farming, or is it to large fields, or is it an inability to have the natural inability to have the natural drainage systems restored which leads to water going to groundwater leads to water going to groundwater

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rather than polluting our rivers. I hope you would agree with my view that it is a multifaceted problem. It's a different issue in problem. It's a different issue in different places, there's not A1 size fits all approach to this. In my constituency it's particularly about phosphate pollution, in other places its nitrates, in other places its water volume. I agree with his earlier comments about the importance of upland water management, flood management approaches, ways we can make sure we manage water and keep it on the land and address questions of drainage.

I mentioned this on the debate on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill the other day, it's crucial that the Infrastructure Bill addresses questions of water management as well. We need to take these things in an integrated and site-specific way. In my constituency of North Herefordshire I have called for many years for a water protection zone to ensure the sources of pollution are directly attributed and tackled, and called for more funding and teeth for the environment agency to enforce the existing rules which will help to reduce the problem of pollution.

So, to conclude, I warmly welcome the bill brought to the house today by the honourable member for Norwich South. I feel it is a thoughtful, constructive, detailed way of bringing people together to address what we all recognise is a crucial problem. But I say to him and I say to the Minister, please let us tackle agricultural water pollution with the same sense of urgency and commitment with which we are addressing sewage. The water commission, it explicitly excludes this from its terms of reference except insofar as it relates to the water industry.

I have read those terms of reference very carefully, I have spoken to the water commission about it. It is not set up to address the problem of agricultural run-off into our rivers. We need the same level of focus on this issue as we do on sewage, because if we want to clean up our sewage, lakes and seas we need an integrated approach.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I congratulate my honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I congratulate my honourable friend the member for Norwich South for his success in the private members' bill ballot and for bringing forward this bill about such an important topic. He deserves such an important topic. He deserves great credit for continuing the national debate about the quality of our waterways. I know from the many our waterways. I know from the many emails I have received since I was elected in July that my constituents elected in July that my constituents in Ashford and the villagers are angry about the state of our waterways.

And they have every right to be angry. The latest figures from my constituency show that the waterways that were polluted by sewage 1127 times in 2023. This was allowed to happen after 14 years of mismanagement, and weakening
11:55
Sojan Joseph Portrait Sojan Joseph MP (Ashford, Labour)
-
-
regulation of the water industry by regulation of the water industry by the party opposite. The polluting of our local waterways as a real-world impact. It risks damaging our impact. It risks damaging our ecosystems, and having an impact on people's health. For example, not people's health. For example, not long after I was elected I was contacted on behalf of a primary school in my constituency. At the school in my constituency. At the end of the summer term the school have a lovely tradition of taking have a lovely tradition of taking some of their children to paddle in the river which runs near their school.

However, the school contacted me to say that when they took the children to the river at the end of the last year 25% of the children who splashed in puddles and in the river were ill within 24 hours. To take another example, a constituent who regularly swims the coast in my honourable friends constituency contacted me to express his deep concern about the amount of sewage that was being allowed to be pumped into the sea from the overflow. These are just two examples on how pollution in the waterways in my constituency was fermented.

It's unnatural and an unforgivable destruction of our waterways, you should never have been allowed to happen. But this is exactly what the Conservatives did when they were in power. Many of my constituents have contacted me in advance of the second reading of my honourable friends bill, to let me know how important water quality is to them. It is a resource we all rely on, but they rightly feel the current system is failing them with polluted waterways, declining service standards and increasing bills.

What companies are failing to deliver for their customers and the environment. And the public has rightly had enough. I welcome that since my honourable friend on the frontbench and his colleagues in their office have taken immediate measures to address the failures of the last 14 years. Including the action to ensure that funding is ring fenced. I was also pleased to see that compensation for the households and businesses will be doubled when basic water services are affected. Was particularly proud to support the water bill in this house and I was delighted to see it received Royal Assent last month to be passed on to the Lords.

The strengthening of the enforcement regime is an important sign to the water industry that things have changed under this Labour government, and we on these benches will not tolerate poor standards of the last 14 years. I want to see a fundamental transformation of our water industry. I also want the waterways in Ashford and the villagers as well as the rest of the country cleaned up and restored to good health. Although I will not be supporting my honourable friend's bill as the measures he is proposing go to far, because I don't think it is the right time to bring this issue, it's an important issue we need to talk about.

I'm not convinced that bringing services into public services guarantee the services will get better. We have seen and we experience with the NHS, we brought in NHS England to fix the problems and now after 10 or 14 years we are getting rid of NHS England. We have seen the standards in our schools, with our roads, like our honourable friend was talking about earlier. So is it the right time, or is it the time to take some responsibility by taking some action that wasn't happening for the 14 years, which this Labour government, within eight months we were able to move fast and take strong actions.

So should we give time for these new actions to come into effect, and see

**** Possible New Speaker ****

if things are getting better. If I could ask my honourable friend, how long does he think we friend, how long does he think we should polish the turd of privatised should polish the turd of privatised water, something you could find in most of our rivers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

most of our rivers. I would like to see that things get better as soon as possible, immediately. We can't carry on any longer. My question is, what guarantee that by taking into the guarantee that by taking into the public sector will give the public that their water bills will come down, whether they get the service. We have seen problems in our public sectors, for example the NHS has no workforce to do the job. We have seen the waiting list have gone up.

Can we wait for two days before water service comes back to our houses if you don't have enough people to do the job? My question is, is it the right time or should we give enough time for the actions we have taken already to come into effect and see if things are getting better? That's why my point is this is not the right time to do it, we need to talk about it, it's an important subject and I congratulate my honourable friend for bringing this in.

We should continue to talk about it, continue monitoring, and this is the only way forward. Once this is the only way forward. Once

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable friend I thank the honourable friend for Norwich South for bringing forward the bill and I enjoyed his passionate, although a little loud, passionate, although a little loud, speech. He is right, the public do one better and I think the actions one better and I think the actions we are taking in government show that we want better also. In recent months there have been discussions in the chamber, Westminster Hall and in the chamber, Westminster Hall and the other players on how we can fix the broken water industry the Tories left behind.

We pass a bill, set up the commission. Clear action from the commission. Clear action from this government. These crucial debates are ensuring my constituents get the justice and representation they deserve after the Tories failed communities like mine for 14 years, not just in the water sector but in so many public services also. The party opposite turned a blind eye to record levels of illegal sewage dumping, cut the Environment Agency budget in half since 2010 and allow customer money to be spent irresponsibly on direct bonuses and shareholder payouts.

The shareholder payouts. The conservatives failed to regulate and protect our waterways even after a shocking incident in September 2022
12:02
Amanda Hack Portrait Amanda Hack MP (North West Leicestershire, Labour)
-
-
in my constituency. On 12 September, the Environment Agency received the Environment Agency received reports of sewage discharge, contractors arrived the same day to stop the problem but officers stop the problem but officers discovered one kilometre near the Brooke had been polluted, the sewage Brooke had been polluted, the sewage discharge had been going on for weeks, completely unchecked. There was an overwhelming odour and thick was an overwhelming odour and thick coating of sewage fungus on the riverbed. Human faecal matter was visible.

Seven Trent admitted they were unable to see that the pumps had failed and they admitted they had failed to monitor effectively. The company gave the Trent Rivers trust £600,000 to support the restoration of the habitat and environmental improvements. In the same year, 2022, so Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer for the UK outlined that serious health risks sewage spills can pose for those using the country's waterways. Nothing was ever done. Even after this incident, sewage still poured into waterways in Leicestershire, 15 hours into an -- 15,000 hours in 2023.

And close to the pumping station rough storm outflows which continue to release untreated affluent, wherever they fancy. I have visited areas, it is disgusting, even when the sewage is no longer being spilled, residual smell lingers. 720 clearance work but never enough. As a Leicestershire MPI have to mention flooding. We have had so many residents impacted by flooding in our county, -- seven Trent. They are never going to be able to return to their homes.

Such is the impact of flooding in my community. If the Tories were still in government, there is no doubt in my mind we would have still had no action to address these issues. They will be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

taking no action to clear rivers and seas and there would be no cracking down on the executives. Had not intervened on many other

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Had not intervened on many other speeches but on that one comment she made, has she actually read the made, has she actually read the published plan for water that was published by the previous government? She aware of the contents which includes £56 million of investment to deal with exactly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this issue? I was on the special waters measure bill and did my research on measure bill and did my research on that. However, nothing changed. So, we had a plan but what we needed is action and that is the most important part of the approach we need to take. Bonuses have been paid to executives, they were still awarded, since 2020 they awarded themselves £41 million in bonuses, benefits and incentives. The price of failure was literally rewarded. I know how important tackling behaviour of water companies is locally and what issues are in my case were, flooding, sewage, water management.

Meeting seven Trent in January, one of my constituents was so furious that the -- at the lack of action in getting the company to deal with the issues, that she brought with her a bag of sewage and dumped it on the table opposite them. They often forget how stomach churning and detestable these issues are. It shows how out of touch these water companies are. Accountability is crucial going forward. We know this. Communication with residents is also important and they cannot be left behind.

I would encourage all of my constituency have experienced of my constituency have experienced problems with -- sewage outflows or spillage to get in touch with me. There is no excuse for the way that my constituents have been treated and I'm sure many in the chamber have constituents with similar stories. It was clear that the bill was the first step in a line of measures to hold water bosses to account. The bill will ban bonuses for polluting bosses, and with the record, it means that no boss should get any bonuses this year.

And with lawbreakers, the example like the one I spoke about earlier may have resulted in a criminal charge. It would also force water companies to pay for recovery action. We have to go further and we will. The price is Cleaner waters and a stable and well funded water sector. The pressure for change is clear and much of the government's ambition to clean up filthy waterways. I'm sure everyone in the chamber today is 100 percent committed in taking the actions necessary to fix our foundations.

That is what our constituents, our country and our environment deserve. My constituents voted for change and I will make sure they will continue to get it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend, my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend, my constituents will want to thank you for raising these issues in the debate today. I would like to begin debate today. I would like to begin by talking about the recent five-day by talking about the recent five-day water ordeal my constituents were subjected to by Thames Water. On the
12:08
Liam Conlon Portrait Liam Conlon MP (Beckenham and Penge, Labour)
-
-
evening of Tuesday, 11 February, the mains water pipe burst in Dulwich, south London, thousands of homes, hundreds of businesses, 11 care homes and 29 schools all lost access to their water, six London postcodes were affected, including two in my constituency. The next day, residents in my constituency worker without any water. In response, Thames Water established a bottled water centre at Sainsbury's. Whilst it is located in a lovely part of the Lewisham East constituency, the Lewisham East constituency, adjacent to the river, it is up to an hours walk away for some of those in my constituency who are left without water.

This was an unacceptable solution, but one that could have been easily avoided. Later that evening they managed to Later that evening they managed to make things worse. The bottles distribution was closed due to an incident leaving people reliant on supermarkets stock. Whilst the distribution did reopen, Thames Water refused to open an alternative site closer to the outage. Despite constituents not having any water by the start of the weekend, from Tuesday evening, including vulnerable customers who could not be expected to leave their homes, never mind what for an hour.

Those residents are entitled to sign up to what is called the priority services register. Residents should receive deliveries of bottled water as well as additional support and communications from Thames Water, yet throughout the outage I received contact from constituents who are not receiving any of this help on time, some were receiving no help at all. Along with local volunteers, my team and I knocked on hundreds of doors on the local area, including the evening of Valentine's Day, which may be the reason I am still single.

To those who might need additional help and deliver bottled water to them over the weekend, including residents who were pregnant, disabled and some who are terminally ill. One constituent story sticks in my mind, a disabled single mother reliant on oxygen was left without water for days, without any support from Thames Water. And the compensation she received for the failure was a £40 goodwill payment. While I would like to thank every volunteer who helped with this effort, it should not have been necessary.

It was Thames Water that had a responsibility to safeguard vulnerable customers and provide alternative water. My honourable friend for Lewisham West and East Dulwich met with Thames Water to talk about lessons they could learn from it. This is not like COVID where it sprang up without any warning, burst water pipes happen all of the time and communication, frequent and consistent communication is a standard thing that constituents and customers are entitled to expect. I do not mention this is to highlight the unjust plight of my constituents, because their experience also embodies the failure of the water system, By the Member for Norwich South.

The failure of the previous government to invest in the system and the application of their responsibility to regulate, a failure to maintain, invest and build have led to a leaky system, where only -- over 50 percent of Thames Water sewage treatment plants have adequate capacity and -- only. All the while, failure is rewarded. In 2023/24 it paid executive bonuses over 1.3 million, -- a reward for the failed management, aided and abetted by the previous government which left shortfall of £24 billion.

He picks up the tab? Our constituents. Left a pay the price of failure and some quite literally seeing their bills double. I do not dispute that investment is needed but this first must never be allowed to happen again. I am pleased to see the action the government is taking, including criminal charges against persistent lawbreakers, giving regulators the power to ban bonuses, giving severe automatic fines for this. I want to talk about the guarantees standard scheme, not something I was familiar with until constituents were left without water, but it is where minimum compensation rates or outages on laid out.

My constituent was entitled for a measly £30 for each 12 hour period they were left without water, or 25 one of -- £25 one off payment for low pressure. Those rates were last updated in the year 2000. I'm glad this government have acted to finally reassess those rates. New plans mean low pressure rates. New plans mean low pressure incidents can have payments of up to £250. And payment for outages will raise to £50 plus further payment for every 12 hours it is unresolved.

I am pleased the government is acting quickly to compensate those who may suffer from outages in the future. Reforms to the water system are not just about security of supply but about protecting waterways and coast. That is something my constituents deeply value and I do also. During my campaign to come to this place, I invited Feargal Sharkey, prominent water campaigner to visit the waterpark in my constituency. We visited an organisation that do so much for the part.

They and the environmental campaigners I have met in my constituency understand that our waterways are a crucial part of our environment and play an irreplaceable role in sustaining biodiversity. I have been impressed in my constituency by so many of the young people I have met on school visits, engaging with young people across the constituency, I know how much this issue matters to the next generation. I was contacted recently by Daniel, year 12 student and member of the Langley Park School for boys environmental society.

He, along with others, use their own initiative to contact me for help in exploring funding opportunities for their biodiversity scheme. They are determined to support wildlife in and around their school and across our constituency. They already organised a clothes swap and make sales to do so. I look forward to meeting with them soon. I met recently with the fabulous eco- counsel at a primary school who displayed care for the environment. Not just preserving it for themselves, but the generation after them also.

They are now working closely with their friends of the park, helping to ensure it remains an attractive place for people to visit, including the short section of the canal that lies in the park. I like to thank many schools across my constituency. They are often alongside the school council. Including many. The Beckenham scouts on Wednesday evening this week, fantastic group of people, we played a game where they set their budget on what they would spend and prioritise as if they were Chancellor and the environment I hope members have seen we don't just have some fantastic waterways in south-east London, but a water system which I know the member has been crucial for pushing for not just protecting our water systems but protecting our natural environment and Heritage as well, something held dearly by every resident in Beckenham and Penge.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to my gallant friend for bringing this important friend for bringing this important debate to the house, I can definitely hear him on the backbenches so I'd thank him for that. In Scotland, thanks to our that. In Scotland, thanks to our Labour Scottish executive, water was retained in the public hands. While that does not mean everything is that does not mean everything is perfect in Scotland, it does provide a good comparison with England and a good comparison with England and Wales.

Since privatisation, water bills in Scotland have been bills in Scotland have been consistently lower than England and customer satisfaction consistently highest for Scottish water, with all other water companies trailing behind. My honourable friend member for Norwich South is right, it is time for a national conversation on the future of water management in
12:19
Alison Taylor Portrait Alison Taylor MP (Paisley and Renfrewshire North, Labour)
-
-
the UK. And the experience in Scotland and Scottish water has much to offer in that conversation. What to offer in that conversation. What companies need to provide our clean drinking water and remove and treat drinking water and remove and treat our waste, and to do so at a our waste, and to do so at a reasonable cost. And to do so over a sustained period of time. Those should be the measures of success were used to determine if a water were used to determine if a water company is delivering or failing.

So much of our water infrastructure was established generations ago, and our established generations ago, and our demands and expectations have changed over time. It is staggering to think that so much of what we rely on today remains largely unchanged from when it was first laid down. So of course there needs to be sustained investment in replacement and renewal. I wonder if the regulation we have had in place has been sufficient to ensure that investment has been made. Perhaps the previous government were less concerned about the right balance between dividends for shareholders and investment in infrastructure.

But the current government will need to take action to ensure that the mistakes of the past are not allowed to jeopardise the water system we need now and in the future. Scotland is endowed with significant water resources. They contribute greatly to the national character and beauty of Scotland. My own constituency of Paisley and Renfrewshire North sits on the banks of the River Clyde, which has seen significant improvements in water quality over the last 20 years. This is thanks in no small part to collaboration between the public water company and other agencies, coordinating actions and investing in the long-term future of the Clyde catchment.

All without the constraints of shareholder dividends. I don't want to pretend everything in Scotland is always perfect, we do have issues with leakage and some notable uncontrolled discharges in my own constituency. But managing the water and importantly sewage is a complex business and requires long-term planning and investment. Scotland seems to have avoided some of the worst experiences of coastal communities in England with untreated sewage being released into water bodies almost on a daily basis. But those small number of activists have been joined by many thousands more who regularly enjoy our coastal and freshwater environment.

In my role as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee I was reminded recently about source pathway receptor model for assessing environmental pollution. Even if the discharge remains the same, if the numbers of people exposed to it increase the impact of the discharge increases. Therefore, the need of urgency in remediation increases. This is one of the factors at play with uncontrolled discharges from treatment works. It is one of the reasons why some of the practices that might have been appropriate in the past are no longer acceptable today.

Like my honourable friend, I want the water industry to do better and to be better. I welcome the discussion and the debate. It is posing many of the important questions our water companies need to address, and I'm sure it is an area where the government will also want to make some substantial progress in the years ahead. Can I thank my honourable friend for presenting his proposals to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

house. Can I also add my congratulations

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I also add my congratulations to the honourable member for Norwich South for the passion with which he introduced the debate today. I introduced the debate today. I believe I serve the best community in the country, and I'm aware I have
12:22
Neil Coyle Portrait Neil Coyle MP (Bermondsey and Old Southwark, Labour)
-
-
in the country, and I'm aware I have constituents in Galloway but I do not play to the -- in the gallery but I do not play to the gallery. The constituencies normal order is the River Thames, I'm subject to only one water operator in Thames Water. I come here to serve my constituents seeking pragmatic solutions. My constituents want safe water, affordable water, and they want problems fixed when they arise. And I very rarely find constituents praised those who provide it.

There's no doubt Thames what has been run into the ground, high bills, leaks, sewage, it's been a disgrace. The great promises of privatisation have failed to materialise over 35 years, the promise of lower bills and a more efficient industry have turned to dust, sadly. Some of the figures speak for themselves. 72 billion ill of sewage into the Thames since 2020 in reports last year, that's at least because not all outlets are monitored. We should thank river action and others, including wild swimmers, wild swimmers are welcome in my constituency, I am yet to take the plunge.

Prosecutions of Thames Water have led to many fines, earlier this year they were fined 3.5 million for killing thousands of fish by discharging millions of litres of untreated sewage into the Thames. This is unacceptable, it is prosecutable. Change is required, it was what is promised in our manifesto. And I believe that's what this government intends to deliver. I want to talk about a few constituents examples about how Thames Water operates, because the honourable member for Hackney South and Shoreditch to support about -- spoke about standpipes, these affect people where bottled water is meant to be provided.

Too often it has to be said it is pushed onto councils to provide rather than the companies responsible for the failure to deliver such a basic essential. I have had to intervene to support constituents in some frankly bizarre cases. In Stephenson Crescent a constituent came to me, she had a leak by her front door from the pipe for 15 years. Leading to higher water bills and a dispute between Thames Water and her landlord being hexagon housing meant that neither were taking responsibility but both said she owed money and should pay.

It should not take a member of Parliament's intervention to get companies and landlords to sort out the problem that was going on so long it was causing damp and mould within her home. A disgraceful state of affairs that the government should seek to change under legislation on how companies operate. On another street Thames Water installed equipment for months, blocking emergency vehicles. Just unbelievable callousness with the disruption going on for 18 months. Disrespectful. In Janeway Street near my constituency office, builders damaged curbing and paving without care for how people were using it.

And of course fenced off payments, disrupting people with pushchairs, mothers and parents, and wheelchairs. Even my own office, when Thames Water attended a flat above my constituency office they removed the gate at the back of my office and didn't bother to put it back. I don't know how they thought I wouldn't get onto them for that. In Oakfield House, a sewage leak into the boiler room meant they couldn't compete or hot water around the building. Residents were left without heating and hot water in December, with temperatures below zero.

Completely unacceptable and not fixed fast enough. Bermondsey village hall, yes there is a village hall in Bermondsey in central London, a leak in the car park where Thames Water refused to accept responsibility. The water metre in this community facility was going like a desk fan, and Chris who runs this wonderful community centre, he is a stalwart, the last time I was in the village hall for a community safety forum, she provides education support and funds to people in difficult circumstances in my constituency, tremendous work.

Chris is working with me before the Charity Commission has to formally get involved. She runs this community hall, a genuine community facility reliant on the goodwill of volunteers like Chris. But the owner of the building, a co-operative, came to me because Thames Water would not acknowledge they were responsible. It took months to sort this basic problem, it took Bayliss turning up for bills they said they owed for thousands of pounds, it was incredibly heavy-handed and symbolic incredibly heavy-handed and symbolic of the uncaring, the excesses.

This is a good example of how they typically show a lack of care for the customers they are meant to be working with, and for the league that was pouring gallons of water underground, potentially damaging foundations of other buildings. And then there is Brunel roadworks. Thames water two weeks ago today began work on Brunel road. This directly caused a two bus services, if you are not familiar with the road, I recommend you do, it is shaped by the river, Rotherhithe is Anglo-Saxon and means a landing place for cattle.

It is shipping, not just shipping of goods and trade, the shipping of people, other members might claim credit for the Mayflower but we know in Rotherhithe that the Mayflower set sail from Rotherhithe in 1622 BUS. The honourable member for Norwich South talks about democracy as part of this bill. The reason it sits out, pilgrims boarded in London, they were seeking democratic and religious freedom. Actually, this is about, there's an amazing book on this written by a constituency in Bermondsey, about how the Mayflower was made in London, came out on the quarter centenary of the Mayflower.

It was about how the investors and people boarded in London rather than anywhere else. The point I was making was about Brunel Road. Rotherhithe is a peninsular, 20,000 people plus, and the two buses being cut off was hugely disruptive leading some people to walk more than a mile to get an alternative bus. Thames Water two weeks ago used an emergency process to seek their works, they sent their email after council officers had left the building. There is a legitimate question about whether the London Borough should have had better access to an emergency email pointing out works covering weekend, I think that's a good question.

But they used that emergency process, dug up the road, but they chose to shut off the whole road. Rather underhanded and uncaring about the impact. Those works were supposed to finish today, I hope they are. If not I hope Ministers will consider new powers for how they block the misuse of emergency procedures like this, as an example. Brunel Road not named after Isambard Kingdom Brunel, better than him, his father Mark who fled left-wing revolutionaries in France who were scrapping private ownership, not just without compensation but taking off the compensation but taking off the He designed and built the Thames tunnel.

The Duke of Wellington's Prime Minister funded the branch so he could build the tunnel that was a feat of engineering at the time. For many years the largest soft ground tunnel. And he invented to achieve that the tunnelling shield. That tunnel was completed in 1843. Originally just for pedestrians. Unforeseeable in terms of how it has been used since, becoming part of the London Underground. The Brunel Museum is amazing, go there. They do sell Isambard Kingdom Brunel stocks.

The modern contrast of the Thames tunnel is the Tideway Tunnel. Thames Water should have been in a secure place to deliver the modern tunnel that has gone under the terms but because they were mistrusted and because of the debt they accrued, they were not in a place to be able to deliver the new engineering feat that we have seen in my constituency. This is a project, an engineering feat of the 21st-century to prevent financial damage, take some of the excess sewage away from London, 7.2 metres wide, the equivalent of three London double- decker buses.

The five metre diameter. One of the engineering houses in an area next to my office. Close to peoples homes. They project run well which compensates for the people directly affected, including those affected when the piling for the tunnel got stuck. Drilling until 5 o'clock in the morning. They got complaints over that issue. They could have provided a park for the community with these to Tower Bridge, but because no one was willing to take on the maintenance and cost with Thames Water not able to be trusted.

Instead of diverting to new company to build the tunnel. They should have acted to address the problems that led Thames Water not to be trusted. They left problems of that nature to be dealt with a more responsible alternative with a more responsible alternative and here we are today. I am not convinced the state taking over is a solution. I have serious doubts that making Thames Water estate own body would make the situation any better for all of the faults that has.

My constituent labour party debated this recently and came to the conclusion that only eight members of my constituency supported privatisation of Thames Water as an emergency motion. I thank them for contributing, it was useful to hear why they felt it was important, there were long shared concerns about how it was running. I would also like to thank those who spoke who did not believe nationalisation who did not believe nationalisation was a solution.

State owned does not necessarily produce better, cleaner or cheaper water and no guarantee things would be cheaper under estate owned model. Nationalisation is not owned model. Nationalisation is not a magic bullet, Civil Service does not necessarily have the skill search. People working from home. We have criticised the last of the Civil Service book supporters of the bill would now suggest they certainly have the skills and expertise to service. I thank you for giving way and an excellent speech.

I have learned so much historically. I do not believe in state ownership of our water assets either. The bill gives the public the final say on that with the Secretary of State and the commission. But there are so many of the models handing them over partly to the strategic authorities, the mayors that the Labour government are setting up. There are a myriad of opportunities and options that we could go down. One of the things about it not being cheaper.

I wanted to draw his attention to research of a visiting professor who said within the system upon a transition to some form of public ownership that the savings amount between 3.2 £5.8 billion annually for England and will, enough to deliver price cuts of between 22 and 34 percent. Because you have lower rates of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

financing future expenditure. A very long intervention.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A very long intervention. I am not clear in the bill where such things are supposedly such things are supposedly achievable. Whether it is when Mike DEFRA of the Treasury, I think it is naive to assume it is automatically better. We also have comparisons in France, Paris has a public water system and in the Olympics triathlon events were delayed because of poor events were delayed because of poor water quality for sewage spills. Nationalising the water industry would cost a small fortune, debt holders would need to be compensated cost meeting an estimated 90 billion.

It would cost and take time and be complex and the burden of investment would be transferred to my constituents with no guarantee that future businesses would provide the funding or assistance needed. And the debt would become public on the balance sheet. State owned system might also deter overseas investors in other water companies, one of the issues in the debate we had in my constituency last week, at a time when the country is seeking to step up in energy generation, I am not keen on blocking investment particularly on green environmental energy production.

I think it is right the government have not set out to nationalise water and I'm interested in results. I welcome the fact that this is one thing to tackle the problems in the sector as quickly as possible by improving what we have. In 2019, voters were so scared of our former leader and the manifesto commitments that they chose Boris Johnson over us. And I know the honourable member for Norwich South commends an element of support for water nationalisation, but the populism we live through and how we got into the situation the country faces now with Brexit, we should be more mindful and wary of simply saying that populist ideas are welcome, which the death penalty is one which many of the public support but not one we would recommend adopting.

We went to the polls last year, we did very well and our manifesto last year said specifically, if anyone does not remember, page 59, Labour will put failing water companies under special measures and we prevent dumping, we will give regulators new powers to block bonuses. We will impose automatic fines and ensure independent monitoring of every outlet. The water industry is not represented here today. I wanted to be devils advocate if I may briefly. They would say they have responded to our election and to some of the public concerns by, for example, they would say they set out plans to invest 104 billion between 2025 and 2032 support incoming growth, they will also outline that drinking water is joint third best in the world, something to be proud of.

And they would say that in between 89 and up to 2023/24 water industry invested billions in total expenditure terms. They would also want us to focus on Ofwat and the role it has played. Had water bills risen with inflation they claim the risen with inflation they claim the risen with inflation they claim the ... That could have dealt with some of the issues. How we deal with the regulator is important. On pollution, not just the water industry, agriculture is believed to contribute 40 percent of water quality failures.

I think we do not spend enough time focused on other problems. And quality of service, the figure is just over 16 billion litres of water supply to customers every day. The equivalent of 140.4 litres every day from Ofwat figures, I'm not sure how everyone is using their share, I intend to use mine. The water companies highlight the support they give to customers, 1 billion of financial support since 2020, including through the pandemic would hundred thousand people supported. They would say that leakage is down.

Another issue affecting my constituency's blockages and we have focused on this much today. There are 300,000 sewage blockages every year in the UK. Partly as a result of 7 million wet wipes, 2 1/2 million tampons, millions of sanitary pads and other things flush down our toilets, including condom's and nappies, not suggesting anyone during the debate suggesting anyone during the debate is responsible. I had an incident caused by a blockage, the smell was disgusting. It was a fatberg, the size of three buses.

It was near the bottom end of Blackfriars Road and bottom end of Blackfriars Road and it was dissected on Channel 4 in a program called fatberg autopsy, secrets of the sewers. It was not the biggest in my constituency, there was also a 30 ton monster fatberg under the cathedral and foreign market. That's why, those fatberg's and problems in the sewers is why we need the tunnel. Ministers at the time should have addressed the concerns of Thames water and not build a whole new model to deliver a tunnel to help address some of those challenges.

Contrast that with the challenges. Contrast that with the Minister from 2024, I want to thank them for acting with the manifesto, the act delivered by this government to deliver our manifesto aims but should be allowed to be implemented before we consider other legislation. It delivers promises by blocking bonuses for those who blog our waterways. -- Pollute waterways. I think we should allow that legislation to be implemented before we look at further adapting and changing.

I think now we regulate is important. We cannot buy future of government, a ban of profiteering, a system that delivers long-term framework is better. That was delivered by government and is followed by the review. The review will shape further legislation in time and apologies to the Member for Norwich South, I think this bill should wait until we see the outcome of the review. The commission has its objectives for the water industry and strategic spatial planning approach, it also has labour values around affordability for customers, governance for water companies operating, financial resilience issues, it also has key measures that have been -- haven't been touched on in this debate, ensuring the long-term stability of the water industry and allowing to attract investment, clarifying requirements so water industry can achieve better environmental The objectives of the commission are set out, it does show that improving the industries capacity is in there.

I will try and conclude, apologies if I've gone longer than expected. As we go forward, any new legislation on waters should be mindful that nationalisation conversations affects the whole sector and the honourable member must be aware this government is having to cut other budgets. The motion on this specific issue did not pass my constituency, but where we have more in common is around tackling abuses in the system including abuse by Thames Water, abuse of the public, abuse of customers with bills and lakes and how they affect people, abuse of the state in expecting us to step in, a company that believes it's too big to fail.

I don't put form before function, I'm focused on the functions of a water company. I'm proud we delivered our manifesto commitments and I look forward to further action from the Ministers as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we develop further in government. Can I begin by congratulating my honourable friend for bringing honourable friend for bringing forward a bill that directly addresses one of the most strongly addresses one of the most strongly felt public sentiments in my constituency and across the country. The work he has done on this bill The work he has done on this bill with Unison and others deserves great respect. I also want to put on record my support for many of the record my support for many of the measures this government has swiftly taken to address the failures in our water system since taking power.

Blocking bonuses for bosses of Blocking bonuses for bosses of polluting water companies to end the absurd financial rewards for the destruction of our natural heritage, alongside ring fencing bill payer money for long overdue improvements to infrastructure. Positive steps in the right direction.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does my honourable friend think that the government Water (Special
12:48
Chris Hinchliff Portrait Chris Hinchliff MP (North East Hertfordshire, Labour)
-
-
that the government Water (Special Measures) Bill could have instructed legislators that Ofwat would have a far more rigourous approach paying bonuses? Because at the moment it's A1 star rating, if you get A1 star rating you don't get bonuses. At every single water company except one in the last 15 years has got more than one star. You think that could have been tightened up?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am seeing some shaking of the head from the Minister, but I would certainly agree it is difficult to certainly agree it is difficult to see how any boss under the current system could qualify for a bonus. I would be failing to adequately would be failing to adequately represent the constituents of north-east Hertfordshire if I did not make it clear that they have no faith whatsoever that private water companies, after years of disgraceful neglect, can now be trusted to restore the health of our rivers.

The residents who have sent me to this place are rightly furious me to this place are rightly furious at being asked to pay more to make good malpractice that water companies been profiting from. The public do not want to pay towards rescuing discredited corporations that have spent decades extracting wealth from our countryside and polluting our rivers to the detriment of wildlife, the pleasures of wild swimming, and any ordinary citizen who cares about the natural world. No doubt somewhere the activities and profits of these companies have been included in the calculations of our nations GDP.

Yet nothing could demonstrate more clearly that so often what passes for valuable economic in this country in reality inflicts pain on the public and affects the well- being of us all. Frankly, it is difficult to disagree with my constituents when they say that given the damage done by water companies to our rivers, through a combination of over extraction and pollution, Ofwat is wrong to allow them to charge so much as an extra penny on bills. Never mind a staggering 31% increase granted to Thames Water.

The residents contacting me about this issue have repeatedly called for water companies to pay for the damage they have done. And they have said if they cannot falter do so without going bankrupt, let them. And should nationalisation be required, let Parliament set the appropriate level of compensation for shareholders, letting off not just company debt but also all the dividends shelled out while our rivers and streams have choked with pollution. I recognise Parliament is not yet ready to accept the radicalism of the wider public on this issue, but my honourable friend's deal offers a clear and pragmatic solution to both restoring democratic faith in the management of our water system and ensuring it puts people and nature before profit.

Because the whole saga we have witnessed in our water system means we can now say, in all candour, that the advocate of self- interested economic decisions produces the collective good insofar as it ever did exist is now just a folk story told to justify the actions of the richest members of our society. When it comes to our water system, the free market is a myth and pretending it exists has only served to inject more pollution into our environment and inequality into our economy.

As has happened on almost every occasion in which we have privatised one of our nation's major assets. This bill offers a solution to reassuring residents that rivers will flow fully once again, that planning consultations will no longer be waved through when they would cause already overloaded infrastructure to flood people's homes with sewage, and that effluent will no longer flow into our rivers for hundreds of hours every year. My final point, something which unites the rivers at each of the locations I just referred to is that they are all chalk streams.

We are proud custodians of 10 of these internationally significant waterways in north-east Hertfordshire, I would be remiss not to take this opportunity to ask Ministers to publish the ready to go chalk stream recovery pack. It would be a move warmly welcomed by local groups in my constituency, and across the country. I would like to extend an invitation to Ministers to join me in visiting the rivers in my constituency to discuss a superb chalk stream restoration pilot project that could be implemented there.

To conclude, this bill has my whole support --. Or, and I hope the Ministers will reflect its whole

**** Possible New Speaker ****

spirit in their remarks today. I congratulate my honourable and gallant friend for bringing forward gallant friend for bringing forward this bill. He addressed it with the passion for which he is well known, passion for which he is well known, but I believe he is also a person of culture so he won't mind if I begin briefly with a little bit of culture briefly with a little bit of culture
12:53
Mark Ferguson Portrait Mark Ferguson MP (Gateshead Central and Whickham, Labour)
-
-
from Philip Larkin. I should make use of water going to church would entail affording, to dry different clothes, my litany would employ images of sales and, furious devout drenched. And I should raise in the East a glass of water where any angled light would congregate endlessly. Water throughout history has been a crucial part of what it means to be human, the human experience. We are all painfully aware from primary school science lessons, we are 80% water. Culturally what is important as well, in my constituency people may be aware of the waters of Tyne.

Crossing the River Tyne crucially between verses. Tourism, as I've mentioned in the intervention today, is critical. And water plays a huge part in that. The Gateshead quays and the Newcastle quayside on the opposite side of the river. If people are coming to the north-east and have their photo taken, the quality of the photo somewhat depends on the quality of the waterways. In the past, Tyneside was known predominantly for coal and our coal industry. Had a huge impact on the industry and our economy, it also had a huge impact on the river itself.

Subsequent years have seen significant improvements of that, but I don't think anyone wants to go back to the days in which you couldn't drink the water from the River Tyne. And IDSA, given some of the sewage that has been poured in from other contributing rivers, you might want to give it a very good sort today. These are the challenges that a government faces. When you inherit a water system that could be described as little more than a national shame. The party opposite resided over millions of tonnes of sewage being dumped into our water systems by an unscrupulous and unregulated water companies.

It's unregulated water companies. It's the water that our children swim in, or that we wish them not to swim in. It's the water that we drink. And it leads to the bills that our constituents pay. Quite often people don't necessarily feel they are getting value for money out of the current system. And frankly, the trust the public places in institutions like this one to protect one of life's most basic necessities is incredibly important. And that's why I was proud to support the government's Water (Special Measures) Bill earlier this year.

But I do believe there's a lot in my honourable and gallant friend's bill that is worthy of discussion, as I will come to later on. I'm not convinced by some aspects of it, but he has certainly done us in this place and the public a service by bringing this bill today. Because the rivers in every one of our constituencies, and there will barely be a constituency not touched by a river or a significant body of water, or coastal communities. In my constituency it's not just the famous River Tyne that borders the constituency, but also to other rivers.

Flood map UK reports outages, there are people up and down this country that have suffered because of these failures. Service for sewage has always -- already been mentioned, 75% of UK rivers now pose serious risks to health due to dangerous levels of sewage, of human waste being dumped into them. I have learned today we can use the word turd in parliamentary language, no one should deal with turds in the rivers, seas or elsewhere. I promise I will not add turd to my regular parliamentary lexicon, and I think it's important to use it in the context of this debate.

Service against sewage also noticed -- noted there were 1,800 reports of sickness after bathing linked to sewage. I would not wish to be unwell in consuming sewage while swimming, perhaps one of the most unpleasant things one could face. This is a public health crisis. People are getting sick. Surfers and swimmers are falling ill after taking to the water. Parents are warning their children to keep away from the rivers. It's utterly shameful in 2025, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

To have to warn people not to touch the water. I already refer to tourism, something that many of us will be familiar with when travelling to other countries, the regular conversational do I drink the water or do I drink bottled water. The idea that tourists to this country may begin to question the quality of may begin to question the quality of our waterways, I think it's a form of real concern. One of those untold economic impacts, I think, that have not really been touched on when we thought about the real impact of water pollution.

At the same time, our constituents are paying the price of water bills which have risen and risen while standards have unfortunately dropped. And dropped in my own constituency, again there are untold consequences here for failures in the water industry that I am glad are being tackled by the government. For example, in my constituency there was a school that had to close a weeks on end with a huge detrimental impact to that school and those students, because of flooding. No child should lose out a days education, a moments education, because of flooding.

Another constituent met me recently to show me the flood damage regularly done to his house. Whenever there is significant flooding water flows through his house and to the back garden. That would be bad enough where he not in his 80s, had he not broken a finger trying to lift the storm drain, and did he not have a love one -- loved one who has serious health problems he is trying to care for sleeping in the downstairs room of the house. These are real lived realities of the failures of our water system.

They are not exclusively failures of the water companies, but all too often the action of the water companies has not helped them being resolved. While normal working people have lost out, water company bosses have regrettably remained quids in. Billions to shareholders, also £41 million in bonuses benefits and incentives paid to executives since 2020. They have paid themselves while they allow the infrastructure of our water system to crumble. Our water system, the pipes,, often old Anglican, something I will come to.

Something I'm pleased the government committed to in the recent Water (Special Measures) Act. Enough is enough, the BBC announced yesterday the water companies released oral sewage into rivers and seas for a record 3.6 million one hours last year. The actions from the previous government were ineffective. That's why since being elected in July the government brought in the Water (Special Measures) Bill on 4 September to this house. We talked about the pace of change in this country, I think everyone on this side of the house would like us to be able to deliver things as fast as possible.

I think people in the gallery and elsewhere in the country are restless change, bringing the bill here in September really showed the seriousness government has. Ringing a bill to this place is not a small effort, as I'm sure my honourable and friend would agree. Therefore, for the government to bring it in in the early weeks of this Parliament when we were sitting is very important. And the first week in September, as At every stage of that bill the party opposite voted against it. That bill passed.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The official opposition did not oppose that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

oppose that. I will happily correct the record. They failed to give the full support that I would have hoped all of our constituents would have wish of our constituents would have wish to have seen. I'm afraid I have seen to have seen. I'm afraid I have seen similar recently, talking about whether the party opposite opposed whether the party opposite opposed the planning and infrastructure bill earlier this week. I would say as we say in the north-east, I hope this is Parliamentary language, if you sit on the fence you tend to get splinters in your bottom.

I advise that this also has those that this also has those consequences. The bill they did not entirely support or oppose. New tougher penalties, including imprisonment for water executives when companies fail to cooperate or obstruct investigations. If they fail to comply they may end up in the dock and face two years of jail time. The meaningful disincentive. Banning bonuses for CEOs and senior leadership unless high standards are not met and protecting the environment and their consumers.

Financial resilience, there has been some discussion but I am sure the Minister will be coming back to this in her remarks. On plan for change to clean up rivers, lakes and seas for God, it is supported by the Independent Water Commission, they held a huge Call for Evidence urging people to provide feedback on what needs to change, to clean up waterways and rebuild our broken water infrastructure. The Call for Evidence closes at midnight on 23 April. There is still time for people to make their submissions.

That is why the New Labour government and the Environment Agency announced these changes. In January, record commitments from the water sector have been made to cleanup the environment, invest in new infrastructure. Representing a 22.1 billion investment in the environment. I am particularly pleased of the changes that were in the around ring fencing of money for investment say that there is a real focus on investment rather than on money slipping away to other places. I want to briefly come back to the citizen assemblies because I would hate for my position on this to be misrepresented.

I have concerns about how national citizens assemblies can work with a geographically disparate nation. I'm constantly concerned that the people of my region and within my region, my constituency of Gateshead Central and Whickham do not always have their national -- voices heard in the national conversation. If I'm sometimes loud, it is I am trying to make up for that. It is a shame the honourable member is no longer in a place because I would have said there is no lack of reading on my behalf, there has been compelling writing on citizens assemblies, I do not claim to have read all of his writing that he has made compelling points about them, I'm not inherently opposed to citizens assemblies, I believe there are circumstances in which they work.

But a national citizens assembly on something as specific as this is something I find challenging and would like to see more information on, as perhaps conversations in this area progress. I would say, I sense my honourable and gallant friend, the member for Norwich South, is not as reassuring as I am with the, but I would say that having done reading over the last few days, but I do feel a lot of the calls made in this bill have been addressed by the government's plan for change, ensuring cleaner rivers, lakes and coastal waters through pollution prevention and restoration, strengthening climate resilience by repairing leaks, reducing emissions and integrating renewable energy into water operations, making water more affordable and preventing companies from prioritising shareholder profits over public services.

Establishing a commission on water, holding water companies accountable with stricter enforcement measures. I think this is a pragmatic, reasonable approach. I thank and welcome my honourable and gallant friend for bringing this today, I think it is important that additional time has been given to this discussion and I look forward

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to hearing what the Minister has to say in response. I would like to thank my honourable friend for Norwich South honourable friend for Norwich South honourable friend for Norwich South for his water quality bill and his excellent speech. There are not many species may look to the gallery and they burst into a spontaneous round they burst into a spontaneous round of applause. This is very complex. of applause. This is very complex. It is not an easy solution. The
13:07
Dawn Butler Portrait Dawn Butler MP (Brent East, Labour)
-
-
It is not an easy solution. The government is doing a lot of work around this issue and holding water companies to account. I suppose the question is really is more that can be done and how the honourable friend for Norwich South and the government can work together and what could be taken from my honourable friend's bill. Ultimately, my constituents are struggling with the cost-of-living crisis and what they do not want to be doing is paying for the failures of these water organisations that are taking billions for their shareholders whilst they struggle to turn the tap on.

And it is frustrating, after the leaks we have potholes. All of this is very interconnected. In 2023 there was a 54 percent increase in sewage spills. That is a whopping 464,056 bills in 2023. That is a huge number stop sometimes it is difficult to get that number into context. The average person passes wind seven to £9000 a year, I hope that puts it into context how much spillage goes into our waters and rivers.

I can see that is landing really well with people, you can imagine how many times pass wind, double that and double that and double that and double that again and that is how much spillage goes into our waterways. The water companies do not care. Billions to shareholders. Some of those shareholders are part of tax avoidance schemes. I'm really pleased that this government is also tackling tax avoidance schemes, because that is vital and important. Infrastructure is crumbling, pollution is doubling, my community in Brent East and other communities are paying the price.

I was one of the MPs, 30 others, who signed a letter to say that Thames Water should be brought into special measures. I do not know any other company or organisation that can fail so many times and still be able to take money out of the system and give it to shareholders and have a contract. I do not know how it makes any sense. My constituents cannot afford the proposed increase of over 50 percent. It really is a thing 50 percent.

It really is a thing about profits are privatised. Sometimes some politicians talk about profits and say it is the politics of envy, it is not politics of envy when you can take profits, put it in the prof -- pockets of millionaires and billionaires but the failures have to be paid for by ordinary people, ordinary citizens. That is not right. It is not just about the environment, it is about justice. Those communities that are often hit the hardest are often those communities that are least wealthy.

That's why it's important that their voices are heard in this place. I am not scared of citizens, not scared of talking to people and having people inform us in the direction of travel, that is what we are here for, as Members of Parliament, the more people that talk to us, the more people that inform us of what they want to see is doing, the better. The Olympic rower, Sir Steve Redgrave, is calling on the government to tackle pollution for profit in the terms.

Some of our members in the Thames were sick after they completed. He has said this, we will not sit quietly while this catastrophe continues. He says it is completely unacceptable and urgent action is needed to stop sewage discharges at dangerously high levels. E. Coli and bacteria is 10 times higher than the Environment Agency threshold for water. I think in France there threshold is lower. The cannot really compare our levels to their levels. And at the moment Thames water is currently being taken to court by the Good Law Project because they are defending £3 billion bailout, which is staggering really.

And the other thing is this. The water companies are carrying too much debt, but that is how they manage their business, which needs to be called out. This situation cannot continue. I think my honourable friend's bill comes up with some of the solutions. I have the wonderful Brent Reservoir in my constituency which is of special scientific interest. What they do is make sure that the water levels and pollution of the water levels are kept down to the extent that we have surviving wildlife and fish in our rivers and they are finding it really hard.

They have not really gotten need to keep going. They were recently even, I thank the Mayor of London, £55,000 funding from the Mayor of London grow back greener fund, they have managed to put in a floating ecosystem to improve the water quality but it gets harder and harder when Thames Water pumped sewage into our rivers. So, this cannot continue. Change has to happen and it has to be accelerated.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to thank my honourable and friend for giving us the opportunity to have this debate the opportunity to have this debate today. It has been a pleasure. I would like to thank him for his service in Afghanistan and commend him on his speech which left my throat drying as he described the conditions in which he served. Thank you for that. One thing I asked -- you for that. One thing I asked -- he asked us to do which was to consider what Mrs Thatcher would have done.

Not something I'm usually asked and she is not usually my touchstone when it comes to judgement, however I am left unconvinced by the need for citizens assemblies and I suspect that the late Baroness Thatcher might have
13:14
Chris McDonald Portrait Chris McDonald MP (Stockton North, Labour)
-
-
thought the same. Members talked about the state of our rivers. That about the state of our rivers. That is something I would like to touch is something I would like to touch on as well in relation to the importance of rivers for biodiversity, recreation and our sense of identity. I represent a constituency ordered by the River Tees and it is an opportunity for me Tees and it is an opportunity for me to get on record that Teesside and Teessiders, the River Tees shaped Teessiders, the River Tees shaped the identity for people in that region.

The town of Stockton has a The town of Stockton has 1/12 century... For their county of Durham, it was the ship building Durham, it was the ship building that show -- led to the growth of population and there was a serious level of pollution, so the river was considered dead by the 19th century, you would not want to step into it, let alone drink it. We have seen change since then, environment and industry live side-by-side. The Redcar terminal anyone of two in the country that can handle a certain vessel, there is a area of scientific interest there, a perfect environment for seals and for birds as well.

In my own constituency the RSPB home to the turns, in an area surrounded by a chemical works, to extract the salt. It could be used to support hydrogen industry in the future. We have a position where the River Tees is exceptional, the river was once dead, a lot is to do with improvements on the river, including a barrage in the 1990s which has led to exploration as well, -- recreation as well, rowing and other activities. I have done some competitive rowing in the past.

My crew only one one race when the other team slowed because they thought they were past the finish thought they were past the finish I took the win, one thing I learned while rowing is how you get intimately associated with the river on which you are rowing. Very much from head to toe. That's why I was quite shocked when a constituent of mine, Robert, described how boat cruise on their way back now often encounter sewage in the River Tees, in water that has been extremely clean.

We need to think about the water companies here, but also giving adequate support to the canals and rivers trust, which is frankly underfunded and struggles to maintain our coast and the River Tees. It needs revenue and capital support. Too much dumping in the River Tees has increased 37%. We now have a new Riverside Park and investment by local entrepreneurs in that area as well. The honourable member for North Hertfordshire mentioned, Herefordshire I apologise, she mentioned in her constituency she has the only water company in England that is not-for- profit.

I thought that was a prerequisite for water companies nowadays. But I think we do need to see big changes in the water industry, but my reservations around citizens' assemblies mean I won't be supporting disability. But I would like us all to remember this point about identity of rivers, in the north-east we have three great rivers, and it defines whether you are a Jordi, a Maghoma or a smoggy. We have an industry that shaped by rivers, but in my area at least rivers of shape the people.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, I rise following a number of excellent and eloquent speeches including the member, my honourable friend from member, my honourable friend from Brent East talking about flatulence, fat birds from my honourable friend fat birds from my honourable friend from Southwark. On that basis I hope to add to that value. And I hope to add some depth as well perhaps to
13:18
Tristan Osborne Portrait Tristan Osborne MP (Chatham and Aylesford, Labour)
-
-
add some depth as well perhaps to some of their contributions. Rivers are absolutely critical to our national identity. In my home constituency of Chatham and Aylesford I have the riverbed way, which I believe the Minister may have visited a few weeks ago when she visited Southern water Hill plant. I also have the benefits of constituents who work, live and play on the river. It is to them that I contribute today, because whether or not you are passionate about your natural environment we are all here because the shape of our landscape.

I want to pay tribute to a number of organisations leading in this space, including watershed recently released a report, and their diligence in terms of sewage releases that have happened across this country. Surfers Against Sewage which are number of colleagues have mentioned, doing outstanding work monitoring. River action and friends of the our other groups engaging with me as a constituency MP. And I think all of us in this house are doing some great work in advocacy. It is with the pressure of others such as Fergal Sharkey and other passionate campaigners that I believe has directed us as a government to the early implementation of a number of critical policies.

I think that advocacy needs to continue, and I welcome that whether it be outside of this house or inside. Continuing the strong voice you are giving. I also want to share the fact that we come from a place where, of course, privatisation has failed in terms of where we are today. Private companies since the Thatcherite privatisation have not been regulated properly. And they have taken significant profits, and they passed them to dividends to shareholders, up to 60 to 70 billion in some calculations that people have made.

Be it flooding, be it first drains, rising costs, the bonus culture, all of this coming together has created a system which has lost the confidence of not only the public but also the public politic of this country. And I believe change absolutely needs to happen. Which is the reason why I do welcome the government's Water (Special Measures) Bill, one of the very earliest pieces of legislation this had prioritised from September. I believe that this, coupled with a series of other reforms coming down the pipe so to speak, will see fundamental change in our water landscape.

I look forward to seeing future reports on that as well. And the bill I believe the government is looking at will fix a broken system. It is, in the government's own words, trying to create a better and sustainable future and greener and healthier rivers, and stronger governance in our water system as well. I think we can all agree the government has the right direction, it might just be the pace of that change which is leading to frustration. In addition to that, I just want to set the context in terms of the debate more broadly.

My concern with the private members' bill is that we might be going down and ideological cul-de-sac. Though I appreciate in his own words he has said he is open to mutual rules and other cooperative styles of management. The debate today has been fixated on national utilities versus private. That is not entirely an honest debate. If we look at Europe as an example, I'm happy to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way. I thought it might be worth clarifying that, so far as I can tell, Hansard will predefine right, the majority of the mention of the majority of the mention of nationalisation was from people opposing this bill. Whereas those opposing this bill. Whereas those who were supporting it were talking about other models including mutualisation and cooperatives.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

mutualisation and cooperatives. I am very happy to take that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am very happy to take that criticism. May I just ask her, I understand the position of the Green Party is for nationalised utilities. So according to her manifesto. If she were to be supporting a citizens' assembly, would that be within a very narrow confines of a nationalised utility? Or would she open that conversation in a People's assembly to other forms of mutuals and other types of ways of working? I just want to make progress if I can, because this private versus state debate is actually not quite the issue it is made up to be.

If we look at Europe where we have a significant number of state utilities, they have similar problems in terms of pollution and problems in terms of pollution and outflows. So the European water regulator, and this is an area which has significant state utilities or state run utilities, has said there are 75 has said there are 75 billion worth of natural pollution, 37% of Europe's social water is in an unhealthy or position. That's with the state utilities, the issue is not necessarily whether it is run by the structures of the body's managing it, be that I accept the privatised utilities have not worked in this country, but it's actually the regulation that they work within.

So I believe the government's position on this is sensible and reasoned, to hand it to Sir John conclave to give regular advice on how we can improve the system. If I can move on in terms of the debate about People's assemblies, I agree People's assemblies are a good idea. Let 1,000 roses bloom, I'm happy to receive representation from all bodies. If this People's assembly is non-binding, I don't see the difference between that and any other group that would be engaging with us in a public space in a public way, I don't see the necessity of having another non- binding body recommend via destruction we would establish, because it doesn't have any more weight than a non-binding body if that's the case.

Just on that as well, the technicalities of any water reform. I understand the previous national bodies or people assemblies that have met in Birmingham over a series of weekends, a lot of this is extremely technical. My worry is that political party you have a mandate since the general election to either nationalise or not nationalise are simply going to tie the hands of People's assemblies behind an ideological viewpoint, which means they don't come out with an outcome which might be beneficial. And being non-binding means this is the People's assembly, this house.

I don't believe that having non- binding institutions adds any value. Just to conclude, I believe this government is absolutely correct in its approach by handing responsibility to John conclave. He will look at this in more detail, in particular regulatory reform which I have mentioned is necessary. He will also mention financial resilience because we know many of these companies have been allowed to borrow and leverage to much which causes significant impact to the cost of water for many people.

I also think nature-based solutions should be pursued much more vigorously, in terms of their outcomes. I know he is looking into that as part of his independent water commission. Just to conclude, I think we should wait to see what the water commission concludes. I don't thing we should make this an ideological argument. People's assemblies I believe do have a strong place, but as this is non- binding it's an unnecessary addition. I welcome other contributions. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's been an absolute delight to listen to the debate. There were times when I thought the position of the Official Opposition was the Official Opposition was unnecessary, because there was a certain amount of opposition on the government benches. I do take this government benches. I do take this opposition -- this opportunity to congratulate the member for Norwich congratulate the member for Norwich South, and I welcome the return of these honorifics, because next time he will have to refer to me as honoured and landed -- honourable and learning.

The bill will have a huge impact, for good or ill. We will discuss that more in coming minutes. Before I do, it's surprising to me and perhaps other members who were in this place before the general election, to see the absence of any Liberal Democrats in the chamber. Not even their official spokesperson. The amount of noise they made before the election about their views on water, it's very telling that when it comes to the groundbreaking piece of legislation where we could really make change, according to the honourable member for South Norfolk, where are they? They couldn't even be bothered to attend.

Unifying the house, we all agree on one thing, and we all know what that is as well. Turning to the speech of the honourable member from Norwich South. He made not just a critique of the water companies in particular, but more so that private ownership in general. I just want to address that very briefly, to remind the honourable gentleman that it is capitalism that has lifted more people in the world out of poverty and despair than any other economic
13:29
Jerome Mayhew Portrait Jerome Mayhew MP (Broadland and Fakenham, Conservative)
-
-
system in history. And yet, I do recognise that there are many forms of ownership within a capitalist of ownership within a capitalist system, including national ownership or public ownership, including or public ownership, including mutualisation and also private ownership. So before throwing the ownership. So before throwing the metaphorical baby out of the almost uniquely clean bathwater, as we uniquely clean bathwater, as we enjoy in this country, let's take a moment to look back at the private moment to look back at the private sector water company performance.

In a way that would have been frankly impossible for me to do prior to the election, because the campaigning noise was so deafening that rational debate all too often was brushed aside. So I hope, I'm taking a risk, but I hope today in this chamber we can have a more rational and careful debate and look at the data. Let's look at the private performance, both good and ill. This is not a defence of the status quo, but it is a challenge to the assumption that private ownership might public ownership is itself a solution.

So look at provision. The first duty of a water company is to provide safe, clean drinking water for their customers. We have heard from one of the members opposite that it is the case that our water industry passes that test with flying colours. Not just clean water but the cleanest water in the entire world, shared with one other country. I hope no one intervenes to ask me which country that is, because I sent Lee don't know. So let's not forget, as we bash the water companies, that they have provided the cleanest what in the world.

The next thing they have got to do is to make sure that supply is uninterrupted. We had an experiment with nationalisation of our water industry, up until about 30 years ago. During that period interruptions in the water supply were five times as likely as they are today. So to put it another way, privatisation has reduced the interruption of the water supply fivefold. We can argue why that is, fivefold. We can argue why that is, So we get examples of disruption, it is terrible, but in aggregate, the number of those disruptions has reduced five full.

Then return to leakage. Because of my honourable neighbour from Norwich South says water is a scarce and valuable public resource, so leakage is very important. Since privatisation, the amount of leakage has reduced by one third. How has always been achieved? The answer is because £236 billion has been invested by the private sector into our water infrastructure since 1991. Have they been able to do that? The answer is, my submission, Madame Deputy Speaker, is because they have not been competing with the provision of new hospitals.

They have not been competing with the provision of new schools. And, as the members opposite will feel perhaps more close to their hearts, it hasn't been competing with personal Independence payments for the disabled, or for the disability element of Universal Credit, or for Carer's Allowance. So, try asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer now for £236 billion to be spent from the public funds on the water. And we know, from the debates we have had last week, this week and next week, it is almost impossible.

Then I move on to performance. There are various different ways of measuring this. There is the headline, which are serious sewage incidents. In the 1990s, the average of serious sewage incidents was 500 per year, that was about the average. Now it is well below 100, the data that I have the last year that I could find was 2021, that was 62. But there is other performance. There is the chemicals being leached into our waterways, through treated sewage. The most damaging for biodiversity is phosphorus.

Since 1990, because of the investment, phosphorus entering our waterways through the water treatment system has not increased, it has reduced by 80%. This is a time when our economy has grown in our population has increased very significantly. The next most damaging as ammonia. Again, since 1990, ammonia, going into the water systems because of treated water, hasn't increased along with the population growth or economic growth. It has in fact declined by 85%. Next, cadmium and mercury, since 2008, a slightly different starting point, I accept, that has reduced by 50%.

So, you can see that if you take away the emotion and start looking at some of the core data. I will just then a second. You can see there have been a very real elements of progress. Not universal progress but real elements of progress, because of huge amount of investment, public and private investment, into our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

water industry and I will give way. I think I can sum up my honourable and learned friends argument, it does seem to be that he argument, it does seem to be that he is telling the public you have never had it so good. I think many of the had it so good. I think many of the public disagree with that and I would also make the point that all of the investment that has gone into of the investment that has gone into our water system privatisation has come from our bills.

What private companies have done is pay dividends companies have done is pay dividends and they have left themselves £60 million in debt. That is money that otherwise would have been invested

**** Possible New Speaker ****

into the public water system. I am absolutely not saying that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am absolutely not saying that they have never had it so good, but I am drawing attention to the actual data, so that we can make a balanced judgement. And I am going to come to some of the disadvantages of the some of the disadvantages of the last 30 years as well, later on in my speech. I hope I will address and give a balanced judgement. So, we have dealt with the rivers. We have have dealt with the rivers. We have dealt with serious sewage incidents.

dealt with serious sewage incidents. But there is... But then we are going to come on, wait for it, do not be hasty, to sewage discharges from overflows. Which has been, without a doubt, in my view anyway, the greatest area of failure for decades, both in public ownership and private ownership. Why has it been the greatest failure? The answer is, for decades, the problem Reported, it wasn't measured. We can see that because back in 2010, when Labour were in power, we only monitored, well, the Labour government, only monitored 7% of store overflows.

So, as a result, we had no idea, genuinely had no idea how frequently the overflows will be inactivated and how long when they were activated. Worse than that, Labour, in 2008, changed the law. One of the honourable members on the benches were probally in Parliament at that stage, they changed the law in 2008 to allow the water companies to self monitored their environmental performance. The Liberal Democrats. They do not come out of this very well either. We can all agree on that Haswell.

Because during the coalition, Madame Deputy Speaker, the Liberal Democrats, from 2013-2015, they were the water minister. What action did they take when they had the levers of power? The answer is they took absolutely no action on this. It was the Conservatives who forced transparency on the water industry, required 100% publishing, forcible monitoring of the data and then publishing of the data in 15 minutes, that has first expose the problem, and then take action through the storm overflows discharge action plan, that is the £60 billion I previously referred to, over a period of 35 years to fix this problem.

We can say we want to go faster, that is true, will want to go faster, but is the balance of cost, the ability of the industry to react in time, that you have to do, as a responsible government, take these decisions. If then we have, Madame Deputy Speaker, an issue close to your heart, the plan, I believe you have the tests in your constituency. We have a plan to -- Improve the water quality of chalk streams as well. But despite the unacceptable storm overflows. The question we need to ask is has river water quality got better or worse over the last period of privatisation? The issue we have with this, the difficulty is the lack of comparative data.

Because, as we monitored more, we have got more data points identifying discharges, which were previously unrecorded. One of the best elements, datasets, to look at is invertebrate biodiversity. And there has been a very, very comprehensive study by the UK Centre for ecology and hydrology, that made an analysis of 223,000 different samples that had been taken between 1989 and 2018. A little biodiversity gain or loss, particularly in species that are particularly sensitive to clean water. That is the mayfly and the caddis fly.

You will be pleased to know, Madame Deputy Speaker, over the last 30 years, biodiversity, invertebrate biodiversity, has tripled. In our rivers, during the tripled. In our rivers, during the period of privatisation. So, it begs the question, there is this problem, which is terrible, I am not defending the water companies in their hiding or lack of inquisitiveness as to the discharge and the number of the storm overflow discharges, I am not defending them. It is a problem that has to be addressed and is being addressed by the last Conservative government, but as our water got better or worse in aggregate, over the last 30 years.

And the data suggests that it is considerably better. I'm going to talk about the pros and cons of privatisation in terms of funding. There are different -- Definite cons in my view to the private ownership model we had over the last 30 years. There was, I concede, and exploitation by some water companies of weak regulation. Taking advantage of their monopolistic position, where you can petition obviously cannot exist, because of the monopolies provide the role of competition is meant to be provided by regulation, and too often, and on one particular issue in particular, the regulation was found wanting, that is, in my view, the financial engineering of the leverage that water committees undertook in the noughties and then peaking at about 2015.

Again, that is a problem that should have been prevented, I accept that. But all of the major parties are guilty and have their part to play in that. It started under Labour, it continued under the coalition, so, the Liberal Democrats have their fingers, I'm afraid, on this as well, as did the Conservatives, throughout 2015. Belatedly, what tightened up their provision. The latest return on capital allowed is 3.4%, from memory, which is, in my submission, reasonable return on capital and one which you might get from a high interest account ourselves, as individuals.

So, I hope I have given a balanced assessment of both the good and the bad of privatisation of the last 30 years. We need to do that because it is the basis on which we address the next question of this bill, which is what is the right mechanism of ownership? In my view, privatisation, on balance, has been a success because it has managed to leverage that investment to improve the quality of our water overall. And to reduce the leakage, to reduce outages, in the way that I have described.

As well as to provide us with the safest water in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Give way very briefly. Thank you to him for giving way and his contributed to this debate and his contributed to this debate for private water companies have invested less than nothing of their own private equity into our water system, since privatisation in fact, we have £60 billion worth of debt. I just want to reiterate once again, just want to reiterate once again, it is taxpayers, bill payers money, that has gone in to these investments into the water system. investments into the water system.

The private sector has paid less than nothing. So, how can we say than nothing. So, how can we say that a privatised water system and natural monopoly, of which there is no perfect composition -- Competition or any competition at all is generating investment. I am failing to see that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What the profit motive does is it does promote efficiency and innovation because the companies want to minimise their costs and therefore maximise their profits. therefore maximise their profits. And the other thing it does is provide access to capital in the provide access to capital in the manner I described earlier, because you have got rights issues as well as the recirculation of water bills, which is quite right, is the which is quite right, is the foundation of the business.

But it is not the only access to capital there. Whereas with public ownership, as we are very, very aware this week, there are limited funds. You cannot borrow forever. You do have, I think what are described as ironclad fiscal rules, which we have heard a bit about recently. We know the government is constrained until governments are constrained in their ability to borrow and spend and let you have other priorities. -- And they do have other priorities. So you are never going to get a big budget for water if it is in the public ownership.

This rings me to my conclusion, Madame Deputy Speaker. This bill has a huge amount of interest in it. There are elements of it I fully agree with. Particularly about nature-based solutions. It builds on the actual plan for water, which the government published in 2022. If it does proceed further, there are areas I would like to discuss and develop, in committee, but I want -- But I will not detain house on it now also look forward to the progress of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill. Thank you so much, Madame Deputy Speaker. I would like to thank my honourable and gallant friend. honourable and gallant friend. Estimated giving these important issues the parliamentary attention they deserve, and for meeting with me in January, where he highlighted me in January, where he highlighted his concerns with the water industry and helpfully set out what he is trying to achieve with his bill. For several years, he has been a fearless environmental campaigner, on this and many other issues. I on this and many other issues.

I would like to thank as well all campaigners and indeed, all the
13:44
Emma Hardy Portrait Emma Hardy MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, Labour)
-
-
campaigners and indeed, all the public, for the interest they have in the water industry. They are quite right to hold the government's feet to the fire on this and quite right to expect so much better than what they have had over the past 14 years. The promise I connect to all of them as that is my duty, that is my job, and that is what I serve every day in this place to do, to improve and clean up our rivers, lakes and seas, and deliver a water system for everybody.

While there might be differences in opinion on how we get there, the motivations behind the actions we take cannot be questioned. I am very grateful for the opportunity to discuss this and I would like to thank all honourable members who have contributed to this important and wide-ranging debate. And all honourable members who attended, not mentioning the ones who maybe didn't. The right honourable member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, the Chair of the Treasury Select Committee, made a really important contribution, talking about the big nasties, those things that we knew when we came into government that would be costing so much money.

The competition that water would potentially face against roads, rails, schools and so much more. That needs repairing. And she is also right to point out when we talk about shareholders, sometimes in the public imagination, we imagine there is rich business person with all of the shares, holding them. Quite often it is the pension funds. And pension funds would require compensation if this was moved into a nationalised situation forced about compensation, otherwise, that compensation, if it wasn't provided, would have an impact on people's pensions.

So, there are real- world... I'm going to come to everyone's contributions in 15 minutes and will try and get through as many as possible and that has a real-world impact. She is right to point out the appalling state of the rivers, the fact they are not a good chemical health, and there is much more to do. Just to reassure her on wet wipes, we have a fact Berg is mentioned today, we are working on gestation to ban those, ongoing at the moment. My right honourable friend for Islington North, again, agree there is so much more we need to do, the level of pollution are of course unacceptable.

I completely support what he is saying the national flood prevention and hopefully, if time allows, we will go into that in more detail later, he will be very pleased to know that only a few weeks ago, we released some beavers into the wild to provide the service of natural pilferage in real need. The odd thing I would say is we do have some of the cleanest water in the world, in fact, our drink and what in England is exceptionally high and the UK was ranked in the top eight countries in the world for dripping water in 2024.

The environment of performance index. I would like to thank the small located that doesn't get much attention, the drunken water Inspectorate, which was one responsible for keeping our water clean. They do an incredible job and thanks to them, the water we have in this country is incredibly clean and I would encourage everyone to feel completely safe as they continue to completely safe as they continue to My honourable friend praised his gallant friend for his service and I quickly echo his remarks.

I want to make the offer to all members to support them and get accountability from water companies if they require it. I discussed this yesterday with some water industry representatives. If you want to discuss further his request look at Rana Mitter protections in the river, I'm happy to take that up. The member for Ashford highlight the anger the public feels about water. And the failure of the past years. Any mention the number of primary schools who came up in this debate frequently, but unfortunately the appalling situation of many of them becoming ill when they go down into the water.

This is Kubicki unacceptable. Again we take seriously the impact water has on public health. It is one of the many reasons why am pleased that Sir Chris Whitty is on the Water Commission giving his expert evidence. The member for North West Lincolnshire, I thank her for work on the Water Special Measures Bill committee. She is right to be outraged by the level of pollution, and for her tireless campaigning for her constituents. And the member for Beckham and p, and the awful outages is constituents faced and the poor service of distribution.

Vulnerable customers should always receive water that should be delivered, and he is quite right to point to the priority. I want to ask each member in this house to encourage people in your community who are vulnerable, make sure they are on the priority services register because they are entitled to support in the event of an outage. Happy to follow this up with him if you would like. I echo his thanks to volunteers. And as he was going around supporting his constituents, they felt incredibly loved by him as their new Member of Parliament.

My honourable friend the member for Paisley talked about the importance of effective regulation and long-term planning and investment. I thank her for work on the Environmental Audit Committee. I should mention, as a former primary school teacher I can't resist, highlighting some of the schools that were mentioned by my friend from Beckenham and Penge who enrolled in the eco-society. Stuart Fleming primary, Churchill's primary, and other schools, excellent work on your clubs, to you and others around the country.

My honourable friend for Bermondsey and Old Southwark shared this ambition to seek solutions to the problem he faces. That is exactly what drives me, and it is what we should be doing here in this chamber today is seeking solutions together for the problems that we face. I thank him for work that he does supporting his constituents, and he always has my support. I have no doubt that he does not need much support from me in making his voice or opinions heard, or holding those companies to account.

The member for Gateshead and Whickham, he might not know without us going too far into history, that he spent many years in whole working at Hull University and is a former teacher, I agree about the importance of education and the awful impact that flooding has on schools opening. I share his restlessness for change. And just to say a bit more because it came up in conversation around this Ofwat consultation. I want to address that head-on. This week Ofwat published their statutory consultation setting out the details of the metrics that would trigger the ban and stop the clock on implementation.

It is right that originally they were just consulting on banning on the basis of Category 1 or category to offence. It is right there looking at more holistic measures than environ mental performance through the use of the EA's environ mental assessment. Just to share awareness, the EPA includes a number of metrics so it includes Category 1 category two, serious pollution incident but it also includes self reporting, discharge permit requirements, use or disposal of sludge and outages as well.

It is all put together into one rating. However, I am the public have been crystal-clear about our expectations that bonuses should be banned for water bosses that have failed. So if it is revealed that Ofwat metrics need strengthening, Ofwat will view this ahead of final implementation. The honourable Member for Brent East, there is much more that needs to be done, and is right to point out the consequence of leaks, of potholes and damage. She has always made thoughtful contributions. And I celebrate with her the removal of tax avoidance schemes.

I met Sir Steve Redgrave who came into DEFRA to hand in a letter so we could talk about the importance of rowing and having clean rivers in which them to grow. Thank you for the support on the Water Special Measures Bill and of course I like the idea of rivers being part of our identity, rivers shaping the people. What a lovely message to leave us always. In my honourable friend from Chatham and Aylesford and he is right, the bill is passed the Government Plan for Change.

Of course we want to deliver more. There is no magic bullet and fixing this problem and that includes the magic bullet not being ownership. Turning to my honourable friend from Norwich South, he says we can do it better. We can. We can do it better. We actually can. This Labour Party was elected on a manifesto for change. It was elected with a Plan for Change will stop the Labour Party was created to serve working people and the working class. It is our duty to do that.

That is what drives us everything today. There is little trust in politics, and little trust in politicians as a force for good. There is no benefit of the doubt given to politicians and people asked about something the assumption is always that we have an ulterior motive. The only way we can change politicians and the public perception of politicians is by delivering change. My honourable friend talks about what is psychologically driving us but my entire focus is doing every thing I can to clean up our waterways I care about the public being ripped off, I care about the people working on the frontline for these water companies who face abuse for the job that they do.

And I care desperately about the natural environment. This is what drives me and this is what I know I will be judged on. My approach to decisions is always really quite simple. It is how can I deliver my aims in the fairest and quickest way possible. So yes, we can do better, yes we are doing better, and yes I expect everyone to hold me to account to do better every day. This is why week one of this new Labour government, in fact they won of me walking into DEFRA, I was told this was happening on my first day, we met with all the water companies got them to change the articles of association or customer representatives on the boards of water companies.

The week before Parliament introduced the Water Special Measures Bill. And we put a downpayment on future reforms, was never intended to be the answer is all the solutions. We launched the Water Commission to fully reset the entire industry. That we change the rules on bathing water, we secured £104 billion investment in the water industry. They did the Call for Evidence. Now I have visited every single water board up and down the country to hold them to account for the promises that they have made.

And to make sure they deliver on ending water poverty by 2030. And I will do more because this is what I care about, this is what this government cares about. This is about delivering change in this place, this is what we were elected to do. I want to make one thing clear if nothing else, this government is absolutely committed to improving the performance of the water sector. And I want to say a little bit more if I may on some of the abuse employees are facing.

I have heard from some of the trade unions about this, and it is an issue that matters to me a lot. When employees are going down to fix the river or deal with pollution, they are not the ones responsible for it. They are facing quite a lot of abuse when they go out and do the job. I would hope it is something that all of us regardless of opinions on water companies, ownership, or models, would agree to say, is abusing people on the front line and trying to clean up the mess as unacceptable.

The trade unions who were talking about this and the people working there have my full and complete support. I think I have pretty much ran out of time. Quickly on nationalisation, the costs that are quoted, I often see the criticism when we are talking about nationalism and people say we are quoting a think tank, and the figures are wrong. So of course one of the things I did when I came in what interrogates the figures around the costs of nationalisation. The costs of nationalisation that we use, it is based on Ofwat's regulatory capital value of the 2024 estimates.

It does not include the tunnel which of us it would be an asset that would be included in the figure, so that is where the figures come from because I often get told we are using a different course. If you put that to one side, that is the regulator capital value of the assets that we have, but it does not assume the ongoing cost. So assuming we would want to deliver PR 24, £104 billion investment, you would be talking about 104 blue pounds investment in the next five years plus the cost of acquiring assets.

I want to be clear on the figures that we are using. I also was going to come back and respond to agriculture pollution because I know that is something the honourable Lady cares a lot about. Agricultural and rural land management accounts for 70% of land use. One of the greatest sources of water pollution in England affecting 45% of our water bodies. The levels of pollution are unacceptable. That is why clean up our rivers lakes and seas as a priority of this government, we are working with farmers to reduce agricultural pollution which is key to delivery against this priority.

We have committed to a rapid review of the Environmental Improvement Plan which will set out how DEFRA will deliver these legally binding targets. The government will develop a new statutory plan to protect and restore our environment with delivery plans to make each of our rivers and running targets which include cleaning up waterways. We will take action to tackle agriculture pollution and deliver the Environment Act through a suite of proportionate regulations. To conclude, the Call for Evidence from the Water Commission is live now.

If anyone in this house wanted to assemble a group of citizens to come together in the local community to discuss this and put the evidence forward, I would entirely welcome it. Because this government will not stop until we achieve what we are promised in our manifesto which is to clean up our rivers, lakes, and seas. This is what drives me. This is what I will continue working on as I finish this debate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With the leave of the house I call Clive Lewis to wind up. Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. I won't go back into a tit-for-tat I won't go back into a tit-for-tat over some of the comments that have been made at the Dispatch Box, and I would like to thank everyone that would like to thank everyone that contributed to this I thought fabulous debate on a really critical fabulous debate on a really critical issue. I think most of us want to get to the same place. We want clean get to the same place.

We want clean drinkable swimmable, surfable water. We all want to get to that place. I think the list of all the work she is doing and will do. The is doing and will do. The opposition, and even the person who turned up to watch the debate today. I will finish on just this point, I sometimes think what would happen if the NHS did not exist. And we in this place came together to decide how we were going to provide healthcare for the people of this country.

I think this place would say, listening to today, that is too difficult to create the national healthcare system. But something based on need not on profitability, not on private sector investment, we couldn't do it. And yet we did it after a damaging Second World War absolutely obliterated our public finances and yet we managed to do it because we knew it was right. I knew that some things don't get judged by their profitability. They are things that we need, our health is one such thing.

And I believe, and I believe millions of other people believe that water is one of them as well. I hope at some point my side of this house, my government, will acknowledge that do some thing about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it. Thank you. I beg to move this debate be adjourned.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

adjourned. The question is that the debate be adjourned. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye". And of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it.
14:01
14:03
Jake Richards Portrait Jake Richards MP (Rother Valley, Labour)
-
-
involving children in care. Representing local authorities trying to safeguard children but also parents fighting to keep their families together, representing the families together, representing the children at the heart of the children at the heart of the proceedings. Time and time again, I saw the same pattern. Children removed from their families for their own safety but with no place their own safety but with no place to go. One Friday afternoon, when I was a very junior barrister, I would often be instructed to attend court for an urgent application to remove a child from the family before the a child from the family before the weekend.

These were distressing cases but upon drafting the order, my work would be done, I would set off to enjoy the weekend but I know for the social work team and more importantly the family involved, the dramatic set of event had only just begun. The process of removing a child can be, of course, incredibly difficult. The police may be involved, parents may be forced into an emotional goodbye. But even once the child is in the care of the local authority, there will be desperate last-minute searches for suitable temporary accommodation.

suitable temporary accommodation. Foster carers would be asked if they can take the charges for a weekend, residential units called to see if they have a spare bed. Too often, I was told by social workers and children waiting for local authority officers late into the night, while these took place. On one occasion, I was told a child slept on an office floor because there was no safe place for them to waste. -- For them to be placed. My bill makes for a modest, small but significant change on the way we approach our responsibilities to children.

In particular, the lack of any meaningful strategy or initiative to meaningful strategy or initiative to ensure there is a good, safe care places in every locality across the country, so children are not placed miles and miles away from their communities, their families, their school and their friends. Because, Madame Deputy Speaker, in recent years, we have seen a deeply troubling trend. Children in care being placed far from home, sometimes hundreds of miles from their communities, their schools, and their support networks of these placements are no longer exceptional.

They are becoming the norm. New data obtained from a Freedom of Information request I submitted revealed nearly 10% of children in care in England and are living more than 50 miles from home, 4% living over 100 miles. The number of children placed more than 50 miles from home has risen from 6,000, just over 6,000 in 2020, to well over 7,000 in 2024. These are not isolated outliers, these are thousands of children, said far from their schools, support networks, and often their siblings and other family members.

Not because it is in their best interests, but because there is simply nowhere nearby for them to go. Even more worryingly, some children are now being placed across borders. The number of children in England moved out of the country, primarily to Wales and Scotland, has risen to 9% since 2024 patients in Wales alone have written finally 50% in that time for these cross-border moves are even more complex, away from their authority, in different jurisdictions in care services entirely. These are not decisions taken through incompetence, they are the result of a system that lacks capacity, coordination and meaningful planning for the impact on children's lives, their education, their mental health, their relationships, is profound.

But because these children are looked after, a phrase that ought to promise protection, but you often ring hollow, their needs are bureaucratised, their voices are marginalised, their lives are shifted like chess pieces on a board they never asks to be part of. Distant places are no longer exceptional, they are systemic. Over 70% of looked after children place outside of the area. Of course., I thank my honourable friend, not just for his passion in this, but bringing his expertise as a lawyer to this here, and will he join me in acknowledging that places like Plymouth, where I represented, this problem can be even more acute, because Plymouth is not particularly near other large cities.

Therefore, the tendency is for children to be placed in care very far away, as he highlights, sometimes 50 or even 100 miles away. As he gets to the part of his speech where he is highlighting some statistics, will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

he just acknowledge that... Thank you. Can I make the point to members

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I make the point to members that while interventions are always welcome, they need to be briefer

**** Possible New Speaker ****

than that. Of course, he is right, there is a problem in the south-west and his a problem in the south-west and his part of the country and his constituency he represents so ably and in fact, there are some members in the public gallery, care leavers, who have experience from a part of the world and there are issues the world and there are issues therefore stop Madam speaker, my bill does not seek to overhaul the care system, what it does set out clear measures.

First, places a statutory duty on local authorities to collect and publish data on distant placements. Specifically, how many children a place more than 50 miles from home and how many have been moved in the past year, due to a lack of suitable local provision for subsequently, it requires every local authority in England to produce an annual local sufficiency plan, a clear forward-looking strategy, setting out how they will meet their duty, under section 20 2G of the Children Act, 1989, to secure efficient accommodation in their area.

Third, to introduce duty Under-Secretary of State for Education, to publish a national sufficiency plan, after each financial year. That strategy must bring together the data collected from local authorities and set out what action the government is taking to support councils in meeting their duties. This, in my mind, is a sensible commonsense approach. I understand this government clearly takes its responsibility is in this area seriously. Future governments may not. This initiative will keep their feet to the fire. Together, the free provisions introduce something in our current -- Introduce something our current system clearly lacks, system clearly lacks, accountability.

It does not plan existing patents, it makes it necessary, for therapeutic care, or stability, there needs to be flexibility in the system. Madame Deputy Speaker, as I touched upon earlier, I am pleased to be joined earlier, I am pleased to be joined in the gallery today by two Carey experienced young people whose courage and insight continues to shape this debate for this bill would not be before the House if it wasn't for them and many of their friends and colleagues who have campaigned so passionately on this issue.

Their stories are vital, because behind a replacement statistic, every sufficiency plan, if a consultation document, there are real lives, shaped by the decisions we make in this place and by government. Kane, just 16 years old, was removed from his foster home, too accommodation far away in Exmouth. The move separated him from his twin sister, and left him feeling alone and invisible. Georgia's journeymen she moved multiple times while in care and experienced periods in mental health hospitals as a teenager, often far from home for so she told the education committee how she had to be declared homeless in order to access the support she needed near her networks.

She described a kinship placement that love's ability, but broke down because her carers receive no form of support for some she was left navigating a high risk accommodation alone, after living alongside other people experiencing exploitation and serious mental health needs, all at the same time, while trying to complete her A-levels.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does he agree with me that it is really important and welcome in the government's changes, including government's changes, including support from local authorities, to support from local authorities, to the carers, like the one mentioned., the honourable member nexin important point, another government and the Minister takes the care and the Minister takes the care system in particular very seriously and the government has make a number already, to show how seriously they take that. In spite of the strategy of solving this problem of distance placements.

When children can stay in the family, they should.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Does the honourable member and my learned friend agree member and my learned friend agree with me that the register of children that is coming in through the children welfare bill is a help, start, for what he is advocating, the development of exactly knowing, the development of exactly knowing, knowing exactly where children are at any given point, would be a healthy start for us?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

healthy start for us? Absolutely, it is one of the measures in the bill, that passed through Parliament in a session which was most welcome. Data can be which was most welcome. Data can be quite a boring topic, but it is so important, but it allows everyone, displays, less journalists, to hold the government's feet to the fire, holding to account, while it may seem dry, it can be really important to make sure we have as much information from what is going on as we can.

Children in care are so often voiceless and we need to make For every George and Kane that find the strength and platform to speak as I was talking about, there are countless others whose experiences remain unheard, people removed from home with no explanation, warning or choice. George and Kane are remarkable campaigners and now, and deputy speaker, it is our duty to respond, with simply a loan but serious structural reform, and I hope this bill can help form part of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that response. Yes of course. I think the honourable member, he is making a very powerful speech are absolutely echo his point about the absolutely echo his point about the voices of young people themselves voices of young people themselves being heard in this debate. I hope the Minister will look kindly on the opportunity to introduce the measures in this bill, perhaps into the children's wellbeing and schools the children's wellbeing and schools Bill in the Lords. May I ask the honourable member, would he agree with me that we are spending more with me that we are spending more and more about taking children into care, because we are failing them care, because we are failing them and their families early on? So, in addition to the measures in his bill, would he agree that we need to invest more in supporting Children and Families Act earlier, so that fewer children end up taking into care in the first place.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely, care should always be a last resort, to talk later in the speech, I will be speaking about the false economy, we are spending false economy, we are spending millions, billions of pounds, and the care system that is failing the children, most importantly, it also the taxpayer and everyone else. So, the taxpayer and everyone else. So, early intervention is critical to that, I completely agree with the honourable members point. Madame Deputy Speaker, briefly, however got to this stage, where the system is failing in all different aspects.

failing in all different aspects. The reasons are complex, too often distant placements simply reflect a chronic lack of local provision, and market-driven care system, unable market-driven care system, unable and unwilling to provide safe and nurturing homes close to whether children live, the result is, as we have heard, thousands of children being let down by a failing system. And one of the most significant contributions to the government's bill, and indeed, our understanding of the whole system was the independent review of children's social care, led by my honourable friend, the number four Whitehaven and Workington.

That review their system under immense strain, where children are too often shaped by market forces, the lottery, rather than shaping the children's best interests, which after all, should shape government policy. The review could not have been clearer. Too many children being placed far from home, it called for a fundamental reset, shift from fragmented care, to one of early intervention, as the honourable member-catered for. For homes that are loving and stable. It warned of dangerous reliance on large providers, many of whom operate with little accountability and high cost.

We could have a whole separate debate about the extortionate costs and profit that private companies are making on the backs of desperate local authorities, in the care system. And the review, by my honourable friend, Care, with a joined of national approach, has left too many children with a risk of its ability, isolation and in some cases, real harm. And we know from councils the crisis and placements efficiency is leaving them with little choice, there are a dire shortage of foster carers, especially those trained to provide therapeutic support for they are locked in bidding wars with other local authorities, or priced out by private providers, demanding fees that would make even a well resourced system buckle.

If the state is going to remove a child from their family, their community, an enormous Draconian power and responsibility, then the least it can do is to ensure every child does not lose everything else in the process. We must not only protect process. We must not only protect -- Must nurture them, to provide stability for I hope this bill lays the groundwork, it ensures we don't just talk about sufficiency but plan for it, and ensures we don't treat data as bureaucratic, but as a foundation of good care, and she was the Parliament plays a role in scrutinising the system, not simply reacting to its failures.

This bill does not ban distant placements. As I already touched upon, there will be places where a child must be moved, but what it does say and says firmly is that distance should never be the default, to drive dysfunction. The government must take a lead role in changing this care system and as I have already touched upon, Madame Deputy Speaker, I welcome the legislation going through Parliament at the moment and I applaud, as I have already, the Education Secretary and in particular the Minister in her place today, for putting children and caring front and centre of the government agenda, that has not happened for many decades, many governments of different colours have failed to properly grasp this, I am pleased that this government is doing so.

I would urge them to go further, and I fear some of the measures and ambitions will be lost, without assuring the care estate in every locality improves capacity for the department has a wide array of challenges, and this is a particularly difficult one. This bill, essentially cost neutral, will keep the focus on this agenda without placing too much responsibly to your local authorities. Because the government knows it must work in partnership with local authorities, yes, but also take strategic decisions about where provision is needed, how it is funded and how we assure market dynamics do not I want to be clear that none of this is about blaming councils, many are doing their best under enormous financial constraints.

They are firefighting in system are the odds are stacked against them. I hope this very modest bill will give them the tools to plan, to build, and to provide, not simply to outsource and hope for the best. They change the expectation, they restore symmetry as the norm, and place the burden for justification on those proposing to break it. If it were our own children, we would expect them to stay close to home to our communities, to where they feel safe. We would expect a proper plan and ultimately that is all this Bill asks government.

The children in our care system deserve nothing less. For that reason, I defend this bill to the house. to the house.
14:17
Rebecca Paul Portrait Rebecca Paul MP (Reigate, Conservative)
-
-
The question is that the bill be read a second time. If there are no further Backbench speakers Shadow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to rise today to contribute to this important debate, and to congratulate the honourable and to congratulate the honourable member for Rother Valley for putting this bill before us in the house. I this bill before us in the house. I want to commend him for shining a spotlight on an issue that affects some of the most vulnerable children in the country. Children who are not simply statistics or case numbers, but our young people who have but our young people who have experienced trauma, instability, and in many cases, loss.

It is essential these children get the loving homes and support they deserve, so they can flourish. The honourable gentleman has brought this issue to the house with compassion and care, and I commend him for doing so. As a serving Surrey county councillor and a former member of the corporate parenting board, this is an issue close to my heart too. I've seen first-hand many of the challenges and systemic failings which have been talked about today. As has already been set out, local authorities have a duty so far as reasonably practicable to make sure looks after are placed in accommodation that meets their needs within the local area.

Many local authorities failed to achieve this, and often shockingly, high numbers of children are placed out of area. The inclusion of the word " So far as reasonably practicable " was intended to give some leeway to local authorities when needed. To recognise that sometimes distance placements are in the best interests of the child in some situations. However, I'm afraid these words have in far too many cases become a licence for abject failure. Yes, I accept there are many challenges for local authorities in meeting their GTs, like the higher cost of living making it difficult to recruit and retain foster carers.

Or increased national demand for placements. Or even the recent ban on using unregulated accommodation facilities 17-year-olds. These pressures are very real. But it is unacceptable that we are seeing high numbers of that we are seeing high numbers of looked after placed into accommodation far from communities they know, far from their schools, their extended families, and their support networks. Often these placements are made not because they are seen as the best option for the child in question but there is simply nowhere else to put them.

The problem becomes this. It becomes almost normal to send high numbers of children out of area. Set becomes more acceptable. I'm here to say today except in very specific cases, it is not. Local authorities and national government need to be doing more to ensure that the sufficiency duty is met. The well-being and safety of these honourable children depends on it. The damaging consequences of these long distance placements are obvious. Children placed a miles away are more likely to excrete educational disruption, more likely to go missing, and more likely to lose contact with friends, siblings, and trusted adults.

In some cases the sense of being cut adrift from everything familiar only deepens an already present feeling of abandonment. It should be also noted that often these placements are located outside of the local authority boundary itself. Giving rise to a myriad of further risks. I think it is self-evident that the system does need further intervention, and I'm pleased that whatever policy decisions are taken in the future will build on the major reforms introduced by the previous Conservative government. Perhaps the most impactful reform in the space was the introduction of the staying put policy in 2014 to allow your people in foster care to remain with their foster families until the age of 21.

This was a transformational step. The first time young people in care offer the same kind of stability and ongoing family support that many of their peers take for granted. It was also the previous Conservative government who rolled out regional adoption agencies which are designed to reduce delays the adoption process and increase the number of children finding permanent loving homes. Since introduction, adoption timeliness has improved and agencies have been better able to match children with prospective parents across wider geographical areas. We also published our strategy and consultation on children's social care, Stable Homes, Built on Love.

Our strategy was backed initially by £200 million of additional investment to existing spending over two is transformed children's social care, including in its living a moral agency transport child support system and ensure every child has a social worker were needed. And in 2022 commissioned by the last government was a landmark. It provided a competitive and honest assessment of the systems challenges, and offered a roadmap for reform focus on early intervention, family help, and a more relational less transactional model of care.

These milestones taken together demonstrate that we have was taken the needs of looked after children seriously and we will continue to work constructively to improve the support available to them alongside members across the house, where no share the same overarching objectives in terms of transforming life outcomes for those children. Coming back now to the bill we are considering today, the ambition to improve data transparency regarding placement of looked after is much welcomed. It places a duty on local authorities to publish information thus making it easier to identify those areas where there are issues where local authorities are not performing.

We will only start to see tangible improvement when the extent of the issue nationally is clearly laid out. As often is the way, measurement prompt improvement. Undoubtedly one of the most consequential aspects of this bill is the requirement for the Secretary of State to produce a national sufficiency strategy for looked sufficiency strategy for looked after children. Local authorities should do more to claret at a regional level to ensure children are placed in placements close to their homes. But the structural challenges faced likely cannot be solved by local government alone.

National leadership is essential and I would urge the Frontbench opposite to look seriously at how best to increase placement capacity where there are shortages. And how to ensure the right children end up in the right locations not just the cheapest. This is not to say that local authorities themselves are not at the heart of the challenge. They are, and I know that they are finding it increasingly difficult, as I had mentioned earlier. The residential care market is heavily dominated by private providers and the cost of placements continues to rise, facing huge strain on local authority budgets.

A shift to a more strategic approach is needed and I recognise that the honourable gentleman for Rother Valley has sought to kickstart this shift with the requirement in his bill for local sufficiency strategy is to be published by local authorities in England. At this point I shall acknowledge that, for all the justifiable talk today against them, there are very limited set of circumstances in which distance placements can be appropriate and necessary. Some children need specialist provision that Sibley doesn't exist locally.

Others may need to be placed at a distance to ensure their safety if they have become involved in gangs or are threatened by an abuser. The question is not whether distance placements should be banned, they should not, but how we get to a point where they are used only when it is truly and demonstrably in the best interests of the child. It is also apparent that the key focus for addressing this issue should be to look at how we recruit, retain, and support foster carers.

Now encourage local authorities to invest in local residential provision at the time of such pressure on their budgets. Many of the answers lie not only in legislation but in funding, training, and leadership, both nationally and locally. I look forward to the Minister's comments on these issues. In closing, I will simply say this, when a child is taken into care, the state becomes the parent. That is not the responsibility to ever be exercised lightly. We must hold ourselves and the systems we put in place to the highest standard.

The standard we would expect and demand for our own children. The honourable member for Rother Valley has brought this bill forward today in precisely that spirit, and I congratulate him once again for doing so, and it was truly a pleasure to speak on it. Thank you.
14:25
Janet Daby Portrait Janet Daby MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Lewisham East, Labour)
-
-
Minister. I'm pleased that this bill provide the opportunity to consider the importance of residential children's homes and the sufficiency of those placements. I know that my honourable friend from Rother Valley will be familiar with the many significant issues this government has inherited, and is having to fix, to fix the foundations for a range of reforms across children's social care. Including addressing the underlying issues that contribute to the country's lack of, shortage of, suitable placement for children in care.

I share my honourable Friend concerns on important issues raised by this bill. And I agree that changes are needed to help local authorities better meet the needs of the children in their care. That is why reforming children's social care is critical to giving hundreds of thousands of children and young people the start in life that they deserve. In November we published " Keeping children safe, helping families drive" which set out our approach. As you will be aware, the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill is progressing through the other place.

Our reforms will help ensure opportunity, not just for some children, but for all children. Our approach to reform will break down barriers by shifting the focus in children's social care to early support, early intervention, to keep families together and to keep children safe. Our plans will help to ensure that children can remain with their families where it is in their best interests. Our plans will their best interests. Our plans will support more children to live with kinship carers or in foster families, and we will fix the broken care markets to tackle profiteering and to put children's needs first.

Before I turn to the content of the bill specifically, I want to first put on record that I am clear that a child should only ever be placed far away from their home when it is in their best interests. In the current system, we know that the lack of availability and suitable placement in the local area is too often the deciding factor for far too many children being placed in care, and too far away from their home and their community. This may have been acceptable under the previous government, but it is not acceptable for this one.

We must change it, and we will change it. We are already working with local authorities to achieve this. I myself have met with many campaign groups and spoken to young people and professionals about this specific area of change. Local authorities are already having an existing duty on them to collect data on out of area placements. Since being the Minister, I have come to realise that this data is actually published every year. Therefore the proposals in this bill are unlikely to tell us anything new about local authorities sufficiency that will help.

This data tells us that, at 31 March 2024, more than two thirds of children were placed less than 20 miles from the home. But that 45% of children are placed outside of the local authority boundary. This is not good enough. There are also many situations within these statistics replacement further away is in the child's best interests and is part of their care plan rather than being due to local sufficiency. I absolutely agree that bold action is needed to improve sufficiency, variety, and complexity of children's needs and individual situations which can not always so easily categorised distance placements as appropriate.

Local authorities staff work hard to find placements in really challenging situations. If a replacement is found to be best to meet the child's needs but is some distance away, on balance it is about the safety and well-being and ensuring that contact where appropriate is actually sustained. Furthermore requiring the national government to publish sufficiency plan misunderstands the way that duties and funding in this space, and risks creating confusion. Responsible thesis that local authority level and it is not for national government to assess how My honourable friend's bill.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. Debate to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

resumed what date? July 2025. Homelessness Prevention Bill,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

second reading. The question is that the bill now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the bill now be read a second time. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Domestic building works, consumer

**** Possible New Speaker ****

protection Bill, second reading. The question is the Bill be now read a second time. As many of that read a second time. As many of that opinion -- As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Objection opinion, say, "Aye". Objection taken, Second Reading what day?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday 13th of June.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday 13th of June.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Exemption from Value Added Tax (Listed Places of Worship) Bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Objection taken. Second Reading what day? Friday 25th of April.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday 25th of April. Friday 25th of April. Exemption from Value Added Tax (Miscellaneous

**** Possible New Speaker ****

from Value Added Tax (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill Second reading. Objection taken, Second Reading

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what day? Friday, 25 April. Caravan Site Licensing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Caravan Site Licensing (Exemptions of Motor Homes) Bill Second reading. Objection taken, Second Reading

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Objection taken, Second Reading

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what day? Friday, 25 April. Vehicle Registration Documents (Sale of Vehicle) Bill Second

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reading. Objection taken, Second Reading

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what day? Friday, 5 September.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday, 5 September. Nurse (Use of Title) Bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Nurse (Use of Title) Bill Objection taken, Second Reading

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what day? 20th of June. Women's State Pension Age (Ombudsman Report and Compensation Scheme) Bill Second reading.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Scheme) Bill Second reading. Objection taken. Second Reading what day?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Fourth of July.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Fourth of July. Arm's-Length Bodies (Review) Bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Second reading. Order, owing to an error in the public office and through no fault of the member in charge, this bill was originally printed with an incorrect title and appeared incorrectly on the Order Paper, for Friday, 14 March. It has now been reprinted with the correct text. The correct inversion of the bill is available online and in the vote office. Objection taken. Second

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Reading what day? Friday, 25 April. Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (Amendment) Bill Second reading.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Objection taken. Second Reading

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what day? Friday, 25 April. Statutory Instruments Act 1946

**** Possible New Speaker ****

(Amendment) Bill Second reading. Objection taken. Second Reading what day? Friday, 25 April.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (Amendment) Bill Second reading.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

(Amendment) Bill Second reading. Objection taken. Second Reading what day? Friday, 25 April.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Domestic Energy (Value Added Tax)

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill Second reading. Objection taken. Second Reading

**** Possible New Speaker ****

BBC Licence Fee Non-Payment (Decriminalisation for Over-75s) Bill Second reading.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Objection taken. Second Reading what day? Friday, 25 April.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what day? Friday, 25 April. Quantitative Easing (Prohibition)

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Quantitative Easing (Prohibition) On behalf of the member in charge, I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Objection taken. Second Reading what day? Friday, 25 April. Pets (Microchips) Bill Second

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reading. Objection taken. Second Reading

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Objection taken. Second Reading

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what day? Friday, 25 April. Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Payments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill Second reading. Objection taken. Second Reading what day? Friday, 25 April.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what day? Friday, 25 April. Anonymity of Suspects Bill Second reading.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reading. Objection taken, Second Reading

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what day? Friday, 25 April. Children's Clothing (Value Added

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tax) Bill Second reading. Objection taken. Second Reading what day? Friday, 25 April.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Highways Act 1980 (Amendment) Bill Second reading.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill Second reading. Objection taken. Second Reading,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what day? Friday, 25 April. British Broadcasting Corporation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

(Privatisation) Bill Second reading. Objection taken. Second Reading what day? Friday, 25 April.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Illegal Immigration (Offences) Bill Second reading. Objection taken. Second reading

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what. Friday, 25 April. Vaccine Damage Payments Act

**** Possible New Speaker ****

(Review) Bill Second reading. Objection taken. Second Reading

**** Possible New Speaker ****

NHS England (Alternative Treatment) Bill Second reading.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Objection taken. Second Reading what day? Friday, 25 April.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Terminal Illness (Relief of Pain) Bill Second reading. On behalf of the member in charge I beg to move. Object. Objection taken. Second Reading

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Objection taken. Second Reading what day? Friday, 25 April.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Bill Second reading. Objection taken. Second Reading

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what day? Fighter 25 April. Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Objection taken. Second Reading what day?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday, 18 July.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment) Bill Second reading. Objection taken. Second Reading

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Objection taken. Second Reading

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what day? Friday, 25 April. Sentencing Council (Powers of Secretary of State) Bill Second

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reading. On behalf of the member in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

charge. Objection taken. Second Reading what day? Friday, 25 April.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Arm's Length Bodies

**** Possible New Speaker ****

(Accountability to Parliament) Bill. Objection taken. Second Reading

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what day? Friday, 25 April.
14:39
None Portrait
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move this House do now adjourn.
14:39
None Portrait Adjournment: Potential merits of issuing guidance on the Down Syndrome Act 2022 to local authorities
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

adjourn. The question is this House do now adjourn.
14:39
Jack Rankin Portrait Jack Rankin MP (Windsor, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. The reason I feel so strongly about this issue is because of one particular campaigner in my constituency. Her commitment to raising awareness and campaigning on a range of issues of people with Down syndrome is inspiring, she is a leading light for people with this condition everywhere. The main thing I have learned with my discussions since becoming a Member of Parliament, is by making policy that affects people with Down syndrome, the best in government can do is listen to those who actually live with it, as well as the families and groups, like the National Down syndrome's policy group.

That is why putting for this debate today. To urge the Minister and her department to listen to groups like the Down syndrome APPG and the National Down Syndrome Society policy group, and make publishing the Down Syndrome Act guidance, which this Parliament has provided the state do a public priority. It is making sure those with Down syndrome are treated with the respect and dignity they reserve across a range of public bodies, from the NHS, the school system, and other local authority services like housing.

If done well, it could set the gold standard for publishing other guidance for those with unique conditions in the future. Importantly, the guidance must be specific to the unique needs of those with Down syndrome. They were with Down syndrome may sometimes have learning disabilities. But Down syndrome is not a learning disability. And Madame Deputy Speaker, in my view, the Civil Service are sinking an easy life here, by mopping this up with everything else, but that's not what Parliament has told them to do.

The Secretary of State for quite rightly called out NHS England as a public body, which serves the interest you body, which serves the interest you should -- Institution rather than patients in this House. But the Minister needs to look at the Department of Health itself. It's call for evidence, it also mooted the guidance could be extended to cover those with broader learning disabilities. This was never the purpose of the act, and risks watering down of the legislation, so far as to make it meaningless.

Clearly, when the call for evidence made it clear, that the needs for those with Down syndrome are distinct. This would undermine the act's whole reason for being, so Would the Minister commit to separating learning disabilities from the guidance completely? And instead, I did as a supplementary document? This would be a way of pleasing all interesting parties without watering down the guidance. Currently, those with Down syndrome only have 25% inclusion in mainstream secondary schools. 94% are unemployed, sadly, their life expectancy is just two thirds of the general population.

But if we provide authorities with this specific guidance, I really believe we can move the guidance -- Move the dial on this forum the opportunities they deserve. Specific guidance to improve health outcomes by directing NHS professionals and it will improve school outcomes, as it will stop those from Down Syndrome Act to automatically being pushed towards specialist schools, when they may benefit from being in the main school. As part of this, I hope the Minister will be able to confirm professionals delivering services to people with Down syndrome will have to undertake Down syndrome specific training, and that this will be included in any forthcoming ideas.

The publication date for the draft guidance has faced multiple delays, the most recent extension published by Easter, has been postponed yet again. The new target set for the summer. So, Liam Fox's act got onto the statutory books as far back in our 2022, but still, families are left waiting. I say again, Parliament has instructed this to happen, relevant officials should get on with it. Unfortunately, today is just the latest in a long list of debates, questions, and letters from the APPG, which have time and again been brushed aside.

Following the passing of this act, each integrated care board, ICB, in England is required to have a board level executive lead for Down syndrome. Who is accountable for ensuring the ICB meets its duties and supports people with Down syndrome effectively. Including implement in the Down Syndrome Act. But as the right honourable member for Beverley and Holderness has pointed out last week his Westminster Hall debate, there are currently three listed leads for the ICB's in England. It is far too slow in all these areas, and reflects badly on this country.

While I recognise the difficulties in transitioning from one government to the next, I feel strongly that this needs to be at the top of the list of the Minister's priorities. It is a binding statute and really not a party political matter. Even when submitting my application for this debate to the table Madame Deputy Speaker, my original wording Deputy Speaker, my original wording was flagged because of things previously made under the previous government. I assume this was some sort of administrative confusion, but will the Minister commit to the official record that bring this forward, this guidance, is a policy of this new government also.

It was a landmark piece of legislation. It gave so much hope to the families across the country, and send the message that their campaigning and hard-working and rewarded. But, as it so often the case, MPs now face an ongoing battle with the grinding Whitehall machine. As well as specific guidance being necessary, this act also creates accountability for public institutions. Now, I am afraid her officials are again dragging their feet in their own self-interest. They do not want to, and never have wanted to, set the precedent that the public could find someone accountable, responsible for their care.

God forbid, any Secretary of State should be held accountable. But this department has legislated, it has given instructions, and I want my constituents with Down syndrome to know who is responsible for their careful step in getting on with it and capturing the unique needs of people in the specific guidance properly, the government needs to engage with the right people. However, a key stakeholder groups tasked with developing this guidance, only three of the 11 organisations involved have specifically focused on Down syndrome and experts in the condition.

Furthermore, the Civil Service has admitted in their own correspondence that they are unsure of the specific needs of those with Down syndrome. This is understandable but why not listen to those who do understand? Those who are part of the community in the Down syndrome APPG, why not listen Down syndrome APPG, why not listen For six months now a meeting is something that a number of groups have been pushing for. Each time they have been rebuffed with a generic response. I hope my rating of this issue today following on from right honourable Member for Beverley and Holderness is debate last week will be the wake-up call the government needs to take this issue seriously.

The chair of the health and social care selectivity has also been contacted to request an inquiry into this issue and to look at the reasons for delays. This is something I wholeheartedly support. From my discussions with the APPG they found the Minister's response to last week's Westminster Hall debate left many unanswered questions. I hope bringing this question back to the attention of Parliament today given the Minister a chance to develop their response. It is also notable that the Minister responsible for this area of policy has been absent both from this debate and from last week, I would be great if the Minister had today be great if the Minister had today would pass on this.

I now think the treatment of the Down syndrome community which has been far from ideal, a meeting with the secretary of state is required to reassure those with Down syndrome that the government has not forgotten them. Will the Minister commits to arranging a meeting of this kind? So we need to get this guidance published as a priority but only if it reflects the true intentions of the original bill. Specific to Down's syndrome, and with proper accountability. I thank the Minister for making the time today and look forward to her response on all these issues specifically arranging a meeting, separating learning disabilities with Down syndrome in the gardens.

And a timeline for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

publication of the guidance associated with the act. Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. I thank the right honourable I thank the right honourable gentleman for tabling this debate on such an important topic. I am also such an important topic. I am also grateful to him for his work with the all-party voluntary group on Down syndrome. People with Down's syndrome should have the same
14:49
Ashley Dalton Portrait Ashley Dalton MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (West Lancashire, Labour)
-
-
syndrome should have the same opportunities to participate fully in society as everyone else. We know this does not always happen. There is a pressing need to raise awareness of the needs of people with Down's syndrome and how they can be met, while every person with Down's syndrome is a unique individual, they often face common health risks. For example, we know that almost half of children with Down's syndrome are born with a heart condition. We also know people with Down's syndrome may need additional support of the speech, additional support of the speech, hearing, or vision.

As the average life expectancy for a person with Down's syndrome continues to rise and increase, I'm very pleased to see that this means more people require additional support in later life. This may be additional support with new age-related health needs as well as an increased demand for social care services. This government is committed to ensuring that all people with Down's syndrome receive the care and support they need to lead the life they want to in their communities. We are taking action to achieve this through the implementation of a Down Syndrome Act.

It lays the foundations to ensure every person with Down's syndrome can lead fulfilling lives, through access to the healthcare services they need, receiving the right education, securing appropriate living arrangements that work for them, and being supported into employment. We recognise there is still much to do to be done to achieve this. What I can assure you and the house that the government is working on the implementation of the act as a priority. The Down Syndrome Act requires the Secretary of State for health and social care to give guidance to relevant authorities in health, social care, including local authorities, education, and housing services, and what they should be doing to meet the needs of people with Down's syndrome.

Earlier this month Minister Kinnock wrote to sector partners and the APPG on Down syndrome with an update on the developers of this guidance. Including the government's plan to put the guidance out for consultation by the summer. This followed a roundtable on 26 November which Minister Kinnock convened.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Twice.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm so sorry. Which the Minister convened to discuss with partners how we can improve life outcomes for how we can improve life outcomes for people with Down's syndrome. And the opportunity that the guidance present in support of this. We present in support of this. We appreciate that many of the issues that have been raised are born out of a desire to ensure the guidance of a desire to ensure the guidance is as effective as possible, and published as soon as possible. We know just how important this know just how important this guidance is.

I can assure you that a huge amount of work has been, and continues to be, carried out to develop guidance. And we, like others, wants to make sure the guidance is fit for purpose and impactful. It has been vitally important that people with lived experience and the organisations who work to support them are involved at every stage of the work to develop guidance. A range of sector engagement has taken place. This includes a national Call for Evidence, partner working groups, and a review of evidence to gain a better understanding of the specific needs of people with Down syndrome.

Throughout this process, have been differences in opinion on the scope of the guidance and how it should be drafted. Officials have worked hard to build consensus on this issue, but as I'm sure members can appreciate, is not always possible to resolve differing opinions quickly, especially on a topic as important as this. While this means that the developer to the guidance has taken longer than we all had hoped, it is only right that these issues are given due consideration they deserve. The Minister responsible set out his position on the issues at hand in his recent letter to sector partners.

Opposition remains that the guidance will be Down's syndrome specific in accordance with the government's statutory duty under the act. It is miliary tension to include references to where the guidance could have wider benefit. This is in line with measuring the bill through Parliament will stop it is not about moving the focus away from Down syndrome. The guidance is about meeting the needs of people with Down syndrome. The bout taking the opportunity through the guidance to help as many people as possible.

Officials will continue to work with partners to ensure the guidance has the maximum benefit for all communities involved. I can also confirm to the member that I've secured today a commitment that the Minister will be working with sector partners to ensure that people with Down's syndrome have direct access and are supported to take part in the consultation. I would like to thank the individuals and organisations across the country who have worked tirelessly to help us develop the guidance.

Their contributions have been invaluable throughout. And we appreciate your continued patience will be work to finalise the guidance for consultation. We would also welcome your support to ensure that the communities we represent are aware of the consultation, and can share their views. We are grateful to members of the APPG on Down's syndrome for their engagement, and can assure them that the comments on the guidance have been considered throughout the development process. The minister in charge wrote to the APPG on 18 March.

Officials will share a second draft of the guidance sector partners for feedback in the coming weeks. I can assure the member bringing this debate that I will pass on his comments to the Minister responsible as requested. In terms of specific training, under existing legislation, CQC-registered providers must ensure that staff receive appropriate professional development, which is necessary for them to carry out their duties. And must receive specific training on learning disability and autism appropriate to the role. We expect providers should be considering whether a specific training on Down's syndrome is required for their staff and officials will work with stakeholders to signpost as effectively in the guidance that we are developing under that Down Syndrome Act.

I thank again the right honourable gentleman for bringing forward this important

**** Possible New Speaker ****

debate. The question is that this house

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this house do now adjourn. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye". The ayes have
15:01
None Portrait Division: That this House do sit in private.
-

15:01
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page