Westminster Hall
Monday 14th September 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 4 hours, 21 minutes ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
16:31
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Of the water sector. I would like to begin by thanking Ashley Paul Smith, who I know is sat there in the back for pulling together this petition. It is now received. Chairmanship. I beg to move that this House has considered. E-petition 762640 relating to a referendum on the public ownership, 208,000 signatures and counting, and I'm sure that number is definitely up to date already. As the founder and chair of Windrush Against Sewage Pollution, ash has been investigating the sewage scandal since 2016.
Members will likely be aware that his efforts were dramatized in Channel Four's Dirty Business earlier this year, which exposes the long term impact of the private model on our water sector.
Members will likely be aware that his efforts were dramatized in Channel Four's Dirty Business earlier this year, which exposes the long term impact of the private model on our water sector.
16:31
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The honourable member. Give way. Yes. And that that brilliant documentary that he referred to was based on an example relating to South West Water and Devon. Many people in my area would like to see South West Water become a company for the public benefit. And Mutualized. Does he agree that that would be a good model for South West Water?
16:32
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you for the intervention. I think you'll find as I run through my speech, there's a strong support throughout that theme for public ownership of the water sector. So certainly it's an option that we absolutely must look at. Ash's petition calls to hold a binding referendum on whether the water industry should be returned to public ownership, because a referendum would give the public back its voice about water. For too long, a water sector has been in the hands of shareholders, rather than the public, who pay for and rely on its delivery.
Go on.
Go on.
16:32
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you, Miss Barker. I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way. My constituents in Morecambe and Lunesdale are really cross about the level of their water bills, and they get more cross when they see the profits being taken out of the water industry. Would he agree with me that that anger is fair, is justified and some change needs to come?
16:33
16:33
16:33
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I thank the member for giving way. My constituents in Putney are very angry about Thames Water, and they can see that they are paying more, but getting less because of the model that we have. Would he agree with me that Thames Water needs to go into special administration and all of our water companies need to be nationalised?
16:33
16:33
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thanks once again for the intervention. Certainly, I will come on to that subject later on in my speech. Absolutely. My view is that there needs to be fundamental change in how we ensure that people have access to affordable, safe and secure water supplies. I will I will just make a little bit of progress because otherwise I'm not going to get past the next , next few paragraphs. In 1989, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher sold off our then public, publicly owned water and sewage industry for £5.2 billion, arguing the privatisation would bring about desperately needed investment for the sector.
She told the Commons that she believed it would be a better deal than nationalised water, and that she hoped it would proceed successfully, encouraging opposition at the time to wait and see. In the light of the facts rather than pontificate years later, here we are. We can see the light of the facts that the private model for water has been far from a success. It has been an economic, environmental and public health failure. I will take that intervention now.
She told the Commons that she believed it would be a better deal than nationalised water, and that she hoped it would proceed successfully, encouraging opposition at the time to wait and see. In the light of the facts rather than pontificate years later, here we are. We can see the light of the facts that the private model for water has been far from a success. It has been an economic, environmental and public health failure. I will take that intervention now.
16:34
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
I thank the honourable member for giving way. My constituents in Manchester, Russia, this year, I've seen £57 increase, and yet it's safe to say that they have seen very little to show for it. Just last week, United Utilities had to pay a further £900,000 in fines for dumping raw sewage. So does the honourable member agree that the government must treat water reform as a strategic priority to tackle the cost of living crisis, as well as the crisis in our waterways?
16:35
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you very much for that intervention. The short answer is yes, absolutely agree. I will just proceed a little bit and then I will. There's two of you want to come in, so I'll just carry on a little bit. Make some progress. So the current model is absolutely an economic failure because private companies have paid out around £83 billion in dividends since 2024 on in 2024 prices rather an average of £2.4 billion a year.
While loading the companies with debt. And those loans were often taken out simply to increase the amount of cash extracted as dividends when profits alone were not enough. And crucial infrastructure, as we know, has been left to fail. Not a single new reservoir has been built since 1992, and water companies have overseen the waste of around 3,000,000,000l of water a day through leaky pipes. I will take the gentlemen there first, and I will bring you in after.
While loading the companies with debt. And those loans were often taken out simply to increase the amount of cash extracted as dividends when profits alone were not enough. And crucial infrastructure, as we know, has been left to fail. Not a single new reservoir has been built since 1992, and water companies have overseen the waste of around 3,000,000,000l of water a day through leaky pipes. I will take the gentlemen there first, and I will bring you in after.
16:36
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Last year, Severn Trent reported profits of £850 million, an increase of 45% on the previous year. Yet my constituents in Wolverhampton West have seen their water bills rise by around 10%, and there have been occasions when Severn Trent haven't been as quick as they could have been to carry out repairs. So does my hon. Friend agree that the situation does need to change so that we don't have monopoly providers who are just making huge profits at the expense of hard working families? Whilst public confidence in the sector continues to decline.
16:51
16:51
16:51
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Giving way. He's very generous with his time. We have some more concessions, but according to recent reporting, Thames Water will have incurred almost £2 billion worth in financing costs and restructuring fees over the last 18 months. Meanwhile, my constituents initial bills are going up. Does the honourable member think that is fair?
16:51
16:51
16:51
16:51
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
My honourable friend. Very much for giving way. The performance of Thames Water for my constituents in Dartford is a continual source of huge frustration, not least their failure to fix a long running leak at Swanscombe station. But a particularly egregious example of poor customer service, is in their failure to fit a water meter to the house of my constituent, Mr. Richard Jones, despite it only requiring a small adjustment to the outside of his house to do so.
And as a result, he's paying an assessed household charge, which for which he's paying far more for his water than he should be. Does the honourable member agree? This is an example of incredibly poor service by Thames Water?
And as a result, he's paying an assessed household charge, which for which he's paying far more for his water than he should be. Does the honourable member agree? This is an example of incredibly poor service by Thames Water?
16:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Let me thank the honourable member for his intervention again. I would absolutely agree with that. And I think many of us are now customers of Thames Water. So I have I have Yorkshire Water, have Thames Water. Sad to say, I've not been impressed as a customer with either. But but for that gentleman that really is is just not acceptable to have that. So there are practical steps that the government can take now.
One option is for Defra to conduct a feasibility study of alternative models to ensure that public ownership has been given due fair and full consideration. I understand that previously, the Department has cited a total cost of £100 billion for full nationalisation, which they, based on the regulatory capital value of the sector. However, this approach has been widely criticised as misleading, failing to represent the accurate market value of a company, for example, Thames Water.
Our CV is over £20 billion yet KKR rescue bid in 2025, before it walked away, valued the equity at around £4 billion because the company's debts have all but wiped out the value of the capital base. A feasibility study would provide full transparency and accuracy. It's also true that the government faces a more imminent crisis, with the likely collapse of Thames Water. Here there are several options, including a special administration regime regime SA.
Whilst technically a temporary form of nationalisation, it would allow the government to test the waters for more far reaching reform. Indeed, without SA, water companies will know that no matter how bad it gets, there is no real sanction. The credibility of the regulation will be fundamentally undermined and in the spirit of devolution, we must strive for a water sector that is decentralised and democratic, serving the interests of our communities. The strong precedence for this.
Some members may be familiar with the example of Berlin's water utility, which was re municipalized following a grass roots campaign in the early 2018. This was driven by demands for greater transparency and accountability issues that have already been raised in this debate a number of times in interventions today, Berlin's water provision is managed by a 16 person board, with eight shareholder representatives appointed by the state of Berlin. An eight employee representatives elected through workforce representation mechanisms.
International evidence shows that the long term democratic involvement in the running of our water sector is essential to help rebuild trust and secure stronger outcomes, and this has practical benefits. The cost of regulation will fall when information becomes open and transparent, but it also provides a lasting guarantee that water is run in the interests of the public, not the private sector. At its heart, this debate is about the right of the public to have the say over one of the most basic and essential services.
If we are serious about setting a new political path, as the Prime Minister said, we must heed the calls of campaigners like us and many others and deliver a water system that is innovative and sustainable. Underpinning the essential infrastructure of our economy and the health of our nation's. We must be brave in our approach. We must. We need to look at history and the decisions of past governments. We do not remember small scale reforms or the tinkering of a broken system.
We remember those who had the courage to rewrite, rewire the state, and deliver lasting change. This government now faces that moment. It must choose whether to preserve a failed model, or to deliver a system that is stronger and more accountable. The choice is clear. It is time to put water back into public ownership.
One option is for Defra to conduct a feasibility study of alternative models to ensure that public ownership has been given due fair and full consideration. I understand that previously, the Department has cited a total cost of £100 billion for full nationalisation, which they, based on the regulatory capital value of the sector. However, this approach has been widely criticised as misleading, failing to represent the accurate market value of a company, for example, Thames Water.
Our CV is over £20 billion yet KKR rescue bid in 2025, before it walked away, valued the equity at around £4 billion because the company's debts have all but wiped out the value of the capital base. A feasibility study would provide full transparency and accuracy. It's also true that the government faces a more imminent crisis, with the likely collapse of Thames Water. Here there are several options, including a special administration regime regime SA.
Whilst technically a temporary form of nationalisation, it would allow the government to test the waters for more far reaching reform. Indeed, without SA, water companies will know that no matter how bad it gets, there is no real sanction. The credibility of the regulation will be fundamentally undermined and in the spirit of devolution, we must strive for a water sector that is decentralised and democratic, serving the interests of our communities. The strong precedence for this.
Some members may be familiar with the example of Berlin's water utility, which was re municipalized following a grass roots campaign in the early 2018. This was driven by demands for greater transparency and accountability issues that have already been raised in this debate a number of times in interventions today, Berlin's water provision is managed by a 16 person board, with eight shareholder representatives appointed by the state of Berlin. An eight employee representatives elected through workforce representation mechanisms.
International evidence shows that the long term democratic involvement in the running of our water sector is essential to help rebuild trust and secure stronger outcomes, and this has practical benefits. The cost of regulation will fall when information becomes open and transparent, but it also provides a lasting guarantee that water is run in the interests of the public, not the private sector. At its heart, this debate is about the right of the public to have the say over one of the most basic and essential services.
If we are serious about setting a new political path, as the Prime Minister said, we must heed the calls of campaigners like us and many others and deliver a water system that is innovative and sustainable. Underpinning the essential infrastructure of our economy and the health of our nation's. We must be brave in our approach. We must. We need to look at history and the decisions of past governments. We do not remember small scale reforms or the tinkering of a broken system.
We remember those who had the courage to rewrite, rewire the state, and deliver lasting change. This government now faces that moment. It must choose whether to preserve a failed model, or to deliver a system that is stronger and more accountable. The choice is clear. It is time to put water back into public ownership.
16:56
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I remind members that they should if they should, Bob, if they wish to be called in the debate and given the interest in this very important debate, I will impose a 2.5 minute time limit immediately. It's obviously up to speakers if they wish to take interventions, but you can see how many colleagues are wishing to speak. The question is that this House has considered E-petition 762640, relating to a referendum on public ownership of the water sector.
Martin Wrigley.
Martin Wrigley.
16:57
16:57
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I'm delighted to be speaking to this petition. It's a really important issue, particularly in my constituency of Newton Abbot, where we have Dawlish Warren, which is the place where Dirty Business filmed and showed the tragic death of Heather preen. And when they came to this house, I met with her mother, Julie, which is a truly sobering thing. As well as the River exe. I have the River Teign in my constituency and both of them suffer.
We are not dealing with water in the right way. I think it's plain to see quite how much we're all going to say differently. I'm not sure tonight, but it's absolutely clear we need to make a change. The experiment in 1989 failed. It was only ten years after that that Heather died, and we can see that investment was not being made. South West Water proudly say that they invest £13 billion in the system, but they pay out more than half of that in dividends.
That is just wrong. I will.
We are not dealing with water in the right way. I think it's plain to see quite how much we're all going to say differently. I'm not sure tonight, but it's absolutely clear we need to make a change. The experiment in 1989 failed. It was only ten years after that that Heather died, and we can see that investment was not being made. South West Water proudly say that they invest £13 billion in the system, but they pay out more than half of that in dividends.
That is just wrong. I will.
16:58
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Give way. I think the point he's making about the failure to invest in Basingstoke, South East Water's failed to invest in the Surrey Hills pipeline, which has resulted in overabstraction at the Greywell Fen, which is destroying our chalk streams, is holding up the local plan, meaning homes cannot be built and risking water scarcity for existing residents. Does he agree that investment is at the heart of this failure, and whatever model we choose must deliver that investment to deliver the change on all of those aspects.
16:58
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Thank you. I absolutely agree with the honourable gentleman. In order to make that investment, there is really only one place where the money comes from. The water companies cannot borrow more money. Their money does not come from the investors. The investors are sitting there. That's the original 5 billion that was made to to to buy it in the first place. The only place it comes from is the customers bills or government customers tax.
That is why water companies must move into public ownership, but more particularly mutual ownership. So the customers own the company. They are investing in their own future. They are not investing in somebody else's profits. So I will make progress. All right. I welcome the changes that have been made in the white paper to a single regulator. But it's been clear for years that Ofcom has not had the Off.what has not had the teeth or the understanding to avoid these water companies turning into financial, financial instruments, dealing with very complex debt deals.
This is where they have gone wrong. We have to change that. We should be looking differently at how we find the behaviour of these companies prior to taking them into some form of public ownership. I strongly believe that when we find them, funds find them money that simply comes from the customers bill. It cannot continue to do that. Indeed, we see people like Thames Water putting off paying that bill for years and that must not happen.
I personally believe we should look at other ways of finding them, perhaps even in shares or something that hits the shareholder rather than the customer. That's the only way you'll have any control over these companies until we make the change. In the meantime, we have citizen science groups. We have the friends of the River Tyne, friends of the River exe testing water on a daily basis over the summer. It is rarely green.
It is always polluted. This is a major problem. We have people swimming in the seas who are relying on the citizen science testing to see what's happening. I congratulate their efforts, but the fact that they have to do it is reprehensible, and it should not be happening in the 21st century. We have to take these water companies out. We have to put them under public ownership, and I urge the minister to do so quickly.
That is why water companies must move into public ownership, but more particularly mutual ownership. So the customers own the company. They are investing in their own future. They are not investing in somebody else's profits. So I will make progress. All right. I welcome the changes that have been made in the white paper to a single regulator. But it's been clear for years that Ofcom has not had the Off.what has not had the teeth or the understanding to avoid these water companies turning into financial, financial instruments, dealing with very complex debt deals.
This is where they have gone wrong. We have to change that. We should be looking differently at how we find the behaviour of these companies prior to taking them into some form of public ownership. I strongly believe that when we find them, funds find them money that simply comes from the customers bill. It cannot continue to do that. Indeed, we see people like Thames Water putting off paying that bill for years and that must not happen.
I personally believe we should look at other ways of finding them, perhaps even in shares or something that hits the shareholder rather than the customer. That's the only way you'll have any control over these companies until we make the change. In the meantime, we have citizen science groups. We have the friends of the River Tyne, friends of the River exe testing water on a daily basis over the summer. It is rarely green.
It is always polluted. This is a major problem. We have people swimming in the seas who are relying on the citizen science testing to see what's happening. I congratulate their efforts, but the fact that they have to do it is reprehensible, and it should not be happening in the 21st century. We have to take these water companies out. We have to put them under public ownership, and I urge the minister to do so quickly.
17:01
17:01
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Thank you, Madam Chair. It's a privilege to open the debate under your illustrious chairmanship, Miss Barker. Can I also congratulate my hon. Friend for securing this debate after the petition and for being so generous with our time. It's very kind of him. And can I also thank some of the members people in the gallery? Members of the public. Ash Smith, Julie Morgan, Rob Forrester and all the other campaigners, citizen activists, citizen scientists that have got us to this point where this is now, I think, one of the hottest topics in politics at the moment.
Madam chair, the people who built our water system understood something. I think we in this place have forgotten. And let me quote one of them. All monopolies sustained by the public ought to be in the hands of the representatives of the people. Members and members of the of the Gallery may like to guess who said that. Was it Leon Trotsky? Was it Tony Benn? Well, it was actually Joseph Chamberlain who ended his career as a conservative cabinet member, you see.
They understood well, many of them understood something back in Victorian days and times that public ownership isn't ideological, it's pragmatic. I will take one intervention because I know time is short. Be grateful.
Madam chair, the people who built our water system understood something. I think we in this place have forgotten. And let me quote one of them. All monopolies sustained by the public ought to be in the hands of the representatives of the people. Members and members of the of the Gallery may like to guess who said that. Was it Leon Trotsky? Was it Tony Benn? Well, it was actually Joseph Chamberlain who ended his career as a conservative cabinet member, you see.
They understood well, many of them understood something back in Victorian days and times that public ownership isn't ideological, it's pragmatic. I will take one intervention because I know time is short. Be grateful.
17:02
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
And it's often said that he should, because Joe Chamberlain is a great hero of mine. Indeed, his portrait sat in my office when I was a minister. What Joe Chamberlain understood was the balance between private interest and public investment and public accountability of the kind the honourable gentleman described. And that is entirely compatible with the views of people across this chamber. It shouldn't be seen, really in those terms. It should be seen about doing what's right by the people, for the people.
17:03
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
I agree 100% with the honourable member. He was the father of municipal government and municipal municipal socialism, if you want to call it, in many ways. And someone I think we in this place can look to. But I know that time is short and I just want to get to one key point. This debate taps into something far deeper than the politics going backwards and forwards between different sides of the House.
I think this taps in to a deep public anxiety about the future of this country and this planet. People instinctively understand that something is wrong. This summer, we all watched as this country burned. We know that droughts are on their way. We know that AI is possibly out of control. Housing, energy, water, food. These are the things that people want under public control, not in the hands.
Madam speaker, Madam chair, in the hands of corporations, billionaires and millionaires. Because when droughts hit, when food security hits, when we can't get access to social care, when we can't get access to health care, we understand that it is the public that needs to be able to make the decisions as to who gets what. And that includes water. It is so vital to everything from industry to agriculture to people having something to drink.
And as this country enters into a potential situation where we will be 5,000,000,000l of water short every week, where we will have the national risk Register says it is potentially a 1 in 4 chance that parts of this country will no longer be able to have a population living there, where they'll have to be evacuated because the water shortages will be so severe. There is no choice but for this government to finally grasp the nettle and bring not just water back into public ownership, but every critical asset that this country has, from data to health to housing, where people need it under our control, owned by us.
I think this taps in to a deep public anxiety about the future of this country and this planet. People instinctively understand that something is wrong. This summer, we all watched as this country burned. We know that droughts are on their way. We know that AI is possibly out of control. Housing, energy, water, food. These are the things that people want under public control, not in the hands.
Madam speaker, Madam chair, in the hands of corporations, billionaires and millionaires. Because when droughts hit, when food security hits, when we can't get access to social care, when we can't get access to health care, we understand that it is the public that needs to be able to make the decisions as to who gets what. And that includes water. It is so vital to everything from industry to agriculture to people having something to drink.
And as this country enters into a potential situation where we will be 5,000,000,000l of water short every week, where we will have the national risk Register says it is potentially a 1 in 4 chance that parts of this country will no longer be able to have a population living there, where they'll have to be evacuated because the water shortages will be so severe. There is no choice but for this government to finally grasp the nettle and bring not just water back into public ownership, but every critical asset that this country has, from data to health to housing, where people need it under our control, owned by us.
17:05
17:05
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. So my constituents want clean rivers, reliable water functioning sewage infrastructure and value for money. What they want from water companies is not necessarily who who owns them, but whether they are properly regulated, properly invested in and properly held to account. Now Thames Water lost 136l per property per day in the year 24 to 25, the worst performance in England. Wales South east water that also covers my constituency lost almost 106l a day.
So how can we ask customers to conserve water, as we have been doing over the last few months, when Thames Water and South East Water is losing so much per property per day? Likewise, sewage discharges, especially into the River Wey in my constituency has been a disgrace, though I would say we only know about those discharges because of the the the implementation of the last conservative government to actually start measuring this. Now I've joined the River Wey trust.
I will give way. Yes.
So how can we ask customers to conserve water, as we have been doing over the last few months, when Thames Water and South East Water is losing so much per property per day? Likewise, sewage discharges, especially into the River Wey in my constituency has been a disgrace, though I would say we only know about those discharges because of the the the implementation of the last conservative government to actually start measuring this. Now I've joined the River Wey trust.
I will give way. Yes.
17:06
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Would you agree with me that ultimately, one way that we could improve the way that water companies are regulated is by actually ensuring that we get independent audit and monitoring of the data we get from these companies in Folkestone and Hythe. We have two beaches in Romney Marsh which are beautiful but are subject to no swim warnings, partly because I think we have a situation where southern water comes up with the data. The Environment Agency agrees with it and nothing happens. And would you agree that that is an important change that would need to happen to our system?
17:06
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Well, I thank the honourable gentleman for his intervention. I I'm afraid I don't remember every precise word in the Labour Party manifesto of 2024, but I, I do believe that a lot of what he is saying is in that manifesto, and I would encourage him, if he gets the opportunity to speak, to ask the Minister those very questions. Now, I've been with the Riverway Trust Trust for water testing, and I know that the Thames Water is now undertaking phosphorus removal upgrades at the treatment works serving my constituency.
But a key question I want to ask the minister is, will they be delivered in a timely manner? This is the Farnham treatment works. Now onto infrastructure. When I last met Thames Water, they told me that it had inaccurate records for around 30% of its infrastructure. So how can a modern water company properly manage its network if it doesn't even know what infrastructure it has? Moving on to South East water, which serves the majority of the drinking water in my constituency, they've received a £22.5 million off.
What? Fine. Yet we still see leaks happening day after day in the constituency , taking weeks to be able to be sorted. Now, these are symptoms of an ageing network which requires proper investment and maintenance. This isn't cost free. However, nationalisation doesn't repair pipes, it doesn't make treatment works cheaper. It doesn't remove the need for investment. It transfers the financial risk potentially £100 billion to taxpayers. And it still requires the regulation, which is clearly failing at the moment.
And I do draw honourable member, right honourable member's attention to what's happened with South Western Railway since being nationalised, with cancellations up, trains shorter and delays doubled since it went in. So why would my constituents believe that nationalisation of water would be any more successful than this government's nationalisation of the railways? I won't because I know lots of other people are speaking, I apologise, my constituents are asking whether the water companies is private or public. They're asking why their water company loses water through leaks, allows sewage into the River Wey and sometimes struggles even to main the basic infrastructure.
Isn't the real test of this government whether it can force these companies to perform better, rather than simply change their ownership as they promised in their manifesto. The choice isn't between doing nothing and nationalisation. It is strong regulation, proper investment and real consequences for failure without putting the bill on the taxpayer.
But a key question I want to ask the minister is, will they be delivered in a timely manner? This is the Farnham treatment works. Now onto infrastructure. When I last met Thames Water, they told me that it had inaccurate records for around 30% of its infrastructure. So how can a modern water company properly manage its network if it doesn't even know what infrastructure it has? Moving on to South East water, which serves the majority of the drinking water in my constituency, they've received a £22.5 million off.
What? Fine. Yet we still see leaks happening day after day in the constituency , taking weeks to be able to be sorted. Now, these are symptoms of an ageing network which requires proper investment and maintenance. This isn't cost free. However, nationalisation doesn't repair pipes, it doesn't make treatment works cheaper. It doesn't remove the need for investment. It transfers the financial risk potentially £100 billion to taxpayers. And it still requires the regulation, which is clearly failing at the moment.
And I do draw honourable member, right honourable member's attention to what's happened with South Western Railway since being nationalised, with cancellations up, trains shorter and delays doubled since it went in. So why would my constituents believe that nationalisation of water would be any more successful than this government's nationalisation of the railways? I won't because I know lots of other people are speaking, I apologise, my constituents are asking whether the water companies is private or public. They're asking why their water company loses water through leaks, allows sewage into the River Wey and sometimes struggles even to main the basic infrastructure.
Isn't the real test of this government whether it can force these companies to perform better, rather than simply change their ownership as they promised in their manifesto. The choice isn't between doing nothing and nationalisation. It is strong regulation, proper investment and real consequences for failure without putting the bill on the taxpayer.
17:09
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Thank you, Mr. Parker. I don't know if my. Okay. It is. Thank you, Miss Parker. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And can I say I'm grateful to the 208,000 people who signed this petition? For many of my constituents in Enfield North, this debate could hardly be more timely. Last month, a burst water main in Bramley Road left thousands of households across Enfield North without water or experiencing low pressure for many days.
Around 4500 properties were affected. Thames Water's own planning identified almost 3000 priority Service Register customers in affected areas, and 24 tankers were deployed. But these figures alone cannot describe the complete misery this caused for my constituents. One told me I've been a resident in Lavender Hill for 27 years. I've never had to endure the incident that I'm currently facing. I live in flats and have had no water for over three days.
Many others described the distressing impact of the most basic aspects of everyday life cooking, drinking, washing and sanitation. And in response, I did manage to persuade the local Morrisons store to make its industrial washing machines and dryers available for free of charge, and I'm really, really grateful to them. But let's be clear, this wasn't just an inconvenience. For many, it was a crisis. The disruption even reached Chase Farm Hospital, where operating theatres lost their water supply, forcing operations to be cancelled for two days while emergency tankers were brought in.
Of course. I
Around 4500 properties were affected. Thames Water's own planning identified almost 3000 priority Service Register customers in affected areas, and 24 tankers were deployed. But these figures alone cannot describe the complete misery this caused for my constituents. One told me I've been a resident in Lavender Hill for 27 years. I've never had to endure the incident that I'm currently facing. I live in flats and have had no water for over three days.
Many others described the distressing impact of the most basic aspects of everyday life cooking, drinking, washing and sanitation. And in response, I did manage to persuade the local Morrisons store to make its industrial washing machines and dryers available for free of charge, and I'm really, really grateful to them. But let's be clear, this wasn't just an inconvenience. For many, it was a crisis. The disruption even reached Chase Farm Hospital, where operating theatres lost their water supply, forcing operations to be cancelled for two days while emergency tankers were brought in.
Of course. I
17:11
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
thank my for giving way that the situation she's describing of Thames Water not being there when the when situations of crisis happen at the same time of picking up huge increases on customers bills and failing to invest in infrastructure. Is this not exactly why we can't have a sweetheart deal with Thames Water? Creditors and shareholders. They must be held to account, and they can't continue with their record of failure on the backs of hard working Londoners here.
17:11
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
I totally agree with my honourable friend, Miss Barker. When a failure in a water infrastructure can disrupt NHS treatment, we are no longer talking about simply about poor customer service. We are talking about critical national infrastructure. And what made this incident particularly unacceptable was not simply that a pipe burst infrastructure can fail. We all know that it was what happened afterwards, my constituents faced conflicting information about whether their water would return.
They struggled to contact Thames Water. Bottled water stations were placed in places where that where there were extremely difficult for elderly and disabled residents to reach without a car. And when I raised the issue with Thames Water, their response was extraordinary. They said it's not uncommon for us to set up bottled water stations in London areas without considering in London area, without considering residents without a vehicle. Think about that.
An essential utility responding to an emergency affecting thousands of people admits that it doesn't routinely consider whether vulnerable customers can actually reach emergency water. It provides, Miss Barker if if an essential service fails, surely the absolute minimum people should expect is to be told what has happened, what they should do, where they can get help and when it should be fixed. That experience inevitably raises a much bigger question who is our water industry ultimately being run for? Hence, I welcome the government's determination to strengthen regulation.
But we should also ask whether regulation alone can solve a problem.
They struggled to contact Thames Water. Bottled water stations were placed in places where that where there were extremely difficult for elderly and disabled residents to reach without a car. And when I raised the issue with Thames Water, their response was extraordinary. They said it's not uncommon for us to set up bottled water stations in London areas without considering in London area, without considering residents without a vehicle. Think about that.
An essential utility responding to an emergency affecting thousands of people admits that it doesn't routinely consider whether vulnerable customers can actually reach emergency water. It provides, Miss Barker if if an essential service fails, surely the absolute minimum people should expect is to be told what has happened, what they should do, where they can get help and when it should be fixed. That experience inevitably raises a much bigger question who is our water industry ultimately being run for? Hence, I welcome the government's determination to strengthen regulation.
But we should also ask whether regulation alone can solve a problem.
17:13
17:13
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Mrs.. Mrs.. Miss Barker, I speak today not just on behalf of my constituents, but of my rivers, the Avon own arrow and stalwart in my constituency of Stratford on Avon, part of the ecosystem of the mighty Avon. All central to our communities, our wellbeing, our local environment and wildlife. Yet the current privatised water system has failed the public and the environment. And first, I want to thank the many citizen science projects in my constituency and campaign groups across the country.
Without their tireless work and water testing, much of this scandal would have remained hidden. This community effort is also matched by a growing public anger about sewage discharges into rivers and seas, and anger towards large executive bonuses while customer bills rise and rise. A model of public ownership could be for water companies to become mutually owned. This will mean greater accountability with the focus on public benefit rather than shareholder profit, with executive boards including environmental experts and local citizens groups, and a greater investment in infrastructure with any profits reinvested into the water system.
Public ownership would make it much easier to manage water collectively as a social good rather than a commodity. This will make solutions like suds, sponge cities and controlling pollution at source not only feasible, but easier to implement. We in Stratford on Avon want clean, thriving waterways and we will not stop campaigning until this mess is sorted out. Thank you.
Without their tireless work and water testing, much of this scandal would have remained hidden. This community effort is also matched by a growing public anger about sewage discharges into rivers and seas, and anger towards large executive bonuses while customer bills rise and rise. A model of public ownership could be for water companies to become mutually owned. This will mean greater accountability with the focus on public benefit rather than shareholder profit, with executive boards including environmental experts and local citizens groups, and a greater investment in infrastructure with any profits reinvested into the water system.
Public ownership would make it much easier to manage water collectively as a social good rather than a commodity. This will make solutions like suds, sponge cities and controlling pollution at source not only feasible, but easier to implement. We in Stratford on Avon want clean, thriving waterways and we will not stop campaigning until this mess is sorted out. Thank you.
17:15
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Anna Dixon, Chair it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Miss Barker, and I'd like to commend my honourable friend for Colne Valley for having opened this petition debate. So, so well, and representing the petitioners and campaigners who are here today in my constituency of Shipley. We're fortunate to be home to two beautiful rivers, the air and the wharf. There are places where people walk, exercise, enjoy nature and spend time with family and friends.
They contribute enormously to residents quality of life while they should. But from Bingley to Burley in Wharfedale, residents across my constituency are afraid to let their children paddle or swim in the rivers because of the health risks created by the illegal dumping of human waste. Just last summer, one of my constituents in Bingley, a boy of seven, was left fighting for his life with E.coli poisoning. He suffered multiple organ failure and needed emergency operations and kidney dialysis to beat the infection.
It is absolutely disgraceful that after so much time has gone since that first tragic death that was so vividly depicted in the channel four documentary, that private companies are allowed to abuse our rivers and continue to put profit before people and nature here. So why are we in this terrible situation? Others have said in 1989, the Tory government did what no other country has done. There is no international precedent for this, but to put the stewardship of our most precious natural resource into the hands of private companies, we were told that private ownership would bring investment, efficiency and innovation.
Instead, we have seen rising debt, rising bills and more pollution in our rivers. It's claimed there's no evidence that public ownership leads to better outcomes. And yet in Paris, where they have had remunicipalisation, they've improved the service quality, water quality and a reduction in price. In fact, the water bills in Paris are about a third lower than they are for my constituents under Yorkshire Water. We must act now to prevent further harm being done to children like the one in my constituency by the likes of Yorkshire Water and Thames Water, and I join with others to urge the government to put Thames into special administration and to be bold in bringing forward a water reform bill that goes beyond the.
Cunliffe Commission sets out a legal framework which will enable us to build back a publicly owned water sector here. Olly Glover.
They contribute enormously to residents quality of life while they should. But from Bingley to Burley in Wharfedale, residents across my constituency are afraid to let their children paddle or swim in the rivers because of the health risks created by the illegal dumping of human waste. Just last summer, one of my constituents in Bingley, a boy of seven, was left fighting for his life with E.coli poisoning. He suffered multiple organ failure and needed emergency operations and kidney dialysis to beat the infection.
It is absolutely disgraceful that after so much time has gone since that first tragic death that was so vividly depicted in the channel four documentary, that private companies are allowed to abuse our rivers and continue to put profit before people and nature here. So why are we in this terrible situation? Others have said in 1989, the Tory government did what no other country has done. There is no international precedent for this, but to put the stewardship of our most precious natural resource into the hands of private companies, we were told that private ownership would bring investment, efficiency and innovation.
Instead, we have seen rising debt, rising bills and more pollution in our rivers. It's claimed there's no evidence that public ownership leads to better outcomes. And yet in Paris, where they have had remunicipalisation, they've improved the service quality, water quality and a reduction in price. In fact, the water bills in Paris are about a third lower than they are for my constituents under Yorkshire Water. We must act now to prevent further harm being done to children like the one in my constituency by the likes of Yorkshire Water and Thames Water, and I join with others to urge the government to put Thames into special administration and to be bold in bringing forward a water reform bill that goes beyond the.
Cunliffe Commission sets out a legal framework which will enable us to build back a publicly owned water sector here. Olly Glover.
17:17
17:17
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
My pleasure to serve under your Chairship. And can I thank the proposer, the honourable member for Colne Valley, for setting out the case so well. I also want to thank my constituents for how many of them signed this petition. My constituency of Didcot and Wantage is ranked number ten in terms of number of constituencies who signed it with 866 signatures. Before I get into the usual damming of Thames Water, I do just want to put something on the record, which is that, however corporately dysfunctional Thames Water certainly is, there are a lot of good people who work for them, and I do want to thank the frontline teams of Thames Water and their managers, who have engaged on issues such as flooding on Didcot, Ladygrove, restoring Wallingford, Millbrook and attending a flooding summit at East Hanney last year.
But corporately, Thames Water is not working and that lets down both its customers and indeed its workers. And last year, Thames Water discharged sewage into our rivers and lakes for over 107 zero zero zero hours. Yet another example of Thames Water failing its customers and the environment, and the regulator, Ofwat, failing the British public despite serving 16 million people with a vital public service, Thames Water is operating with £23 billion of assets in urgent need of repair and close to £20 billion of debt, which is said it cannot repay.
A third of customers bills are spent servicing that debt. In this context, it is unclear how Thames Water is the right organisation to be responsible for delivery of the proposed White Horse reservoir, whose estimated costs have already increased from 2.2 billion to £7.5 billion. In terms of where we have how we move forward, certainly special administration is the right thing for Thames Water, but in terms of the subject of the E-petition, we do assume that nationalised organisations automatically lead to good delivery, but the evidence on this is at best mixed.
It will come as a surprise to users of train services in the north of England, delivered by Network Rail nationalised nearly a quarter of a century ago, and Northern Rail, who is nationalised over half a decade ago, that that automatically leads to brilliance. So that's why, instead of nationalisation, liberal Democrats are calling for water companies to become mutually owned public benefit corporations owned by customers professionally managed and not driven by shareholder profit with effective regulation. Finally, Mrs. Barker, in terms of the proposed remedy, the delivery mechanism for that of a referendum, I still personally have PTSD from the 2016 one.
Instead, we should add this to the Prime Minister's list of things he needs to forge cross-party consensus on.
But corporately, Thames Water is not working and that lets down both its customers and indeed its workers. And last year, Thames Water discharged sewage into our rivers and lakes for over 107 zero zero zero hours. Yet another example of Thames Water failing its customers and the environment, and the regulator, Ofwat, failing the British public despite serving 16 million people with a vital public service, Thames Water is operating with £23 billion of assets in urgent need of repair and close to £20 billion of debt, which is said it cannot repay.
A third of customers bills are spent servicing that debt. In this context, it is unclear how Thames Water is the right organisation to be responsible for delivery of the proposed White Horse reservoir, whose estimated costs have already increased from 2.2 billion to £7.5 billion. In terms of where we have how we move forward, certainly special administration is the right thing for Thames Water, but in terms of the subject of the E-petition, we do assume that nationalised organisations automatically lead to good delivery, but the evidence on this is at best mixed.
It will come as a surprise to users of train services in the north of England, delivered by Network Rail nationalised nearly a quarter of a century ago, and Northern Rail, who is nationalised over half a decade ago, that that automatically leads to brilliance. So that's why, instead of nationalisation, liberal Democrats are calling for water companies to become mutually owned public benefit corporations owned by customers professionally managed and not driven by shareholder profit with effective regulation. Finally, Mrs. Barker, in terms of the proposed remedy, the delivery mechanism for that of a referendum, I still personally have PTSD from the 2016 one.
Instead, we should add this to the Prime Minister's list of things he needs to forge cross-party consensus on.
17:20
17:20
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
Thank you, Madam Chair. I hope I don't shock my honourable friend for Colne Valley, who made an excellent speech in opening this debate. When I say I don't want a referendum to bring the water industry back into public ownership. I just want ministers to get on and do it. The Secretary of State has the power under the Water Industry Act 1991, to petition the High Court for any water company to lose its licence for either poor performance or insolvency.
Poor performance, discharging untreated sewage into our waterways across England and Wales. 568,674 times in just one year. I call that poor performance, and it's the reason that Off Water and the Environment Agency have been imposing fines of over £1,000,100 million a time on water companies. No river in England meets good chemical status , and only 14% that's 1 in 7 achieve good ecological status overall. Section 94 of the Water Industry Act sets out that companies have a principal duty to provide sewerage systems.
They also have a principal duty to comply with the statutory duties laid upon them by regulation. For schedule two of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations, 1994. The Secretary of State can apply to put a company into special administration regime if it has, or is likely to contravene any principal duty they have. She should. Insolvency. Let's turn to the Thames Water.
Disservice to my constituency of Brent West. Under section 24 of the act, the company can be taken into SAR if it is or is likely to be unable to pay its debts. Thames Gearing is 88%. Major pension funds have written off their £956 million stake in the company, and it's failed its licence obligation to maintain investment grade status. No I won't. Their credit rating is now junk status. The only way this company claims it can pay its bills is if the regulator allows it not to do its job of meeting its environmental performance obligations.
For goodness sake, we don't need a referendum. We need a secretary of state that's prepared to use the legislation that was provided for the purpose to defend the public.
Poor performance, discharging untreated sewage into our waterways across England and Wales. 568,674 times in just one year. I call that poor performance, and it's the reason that Off Water and the Environment Agency have been imposing fines of over £1,000,100 million a time on water companies. No river in England meets good chemical status , and only 14% that's 1 in 7 achieve good ecological status overall. Section 94 of the Water Industry Act sets out that companies have a principal duty to provide sewerage systems.
They also have a principal duty to comply with the statutory duties laid upon them by regulation. For schedule two of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations, 1994. The Secretary of State can apply to put a company into special administration regime if it has, or is likely to contravene any principal duty they have. She should. Insolvency. Let's turn to the Thames Water.
Disservice to my constituency of Brent West. Under section 24 of the act, the company can be taken into SAR if it is or is likely to be unable to pay its debts. Thames Gearing is 88%. Major pension funds have written off their £956 million stake in the company, and it's failed its licence obligation to maintain investment grade status. No I won't. Their credit rating is now junk status. The only way this company claims it can pay its bills is if the regulator allows it not to do its job of meeting its environmental performance obligations.
For goodness sake, we don't need a referendum. We need a secretary of state that's prepared to use the legislation that was provided for the purpose to defend the public.
17:22
17:22
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
Thank you, chair. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And I would also like to thank the many constituents who signed this petition. While we've had a range of views across the chamber on the best ownership model, we can surely agree that the current model is untenable, unsustainable and lacks democratic involvement. No one wants it except the water bosses themselves. My constituents continue to write to me to express their dissatisfaction with the system.
Our local waste water company is Wessex Water. Their former chief executive, Colin Skellett, received £170,000 bonus from parent company YTL utilities UK in 2024, despite a government ban on performance related payments following criminal pollution convictions. Accounts covering the period to June 2025 show the Malaysian owned parent company paid Mr. Skellett total remuneration of £693,000. Wessex Water was subject to a bonus ban after being criminally convicted in November 2024 over a sewage pumping station failure.
My hon. Friend the member for East Somerset came out passionately to condemn this. However, I am sorry to say that since then things have not got any better. Our rivers are not cleaner, our infrastructure has not seen significant upgrades, our water bills have not gone down. But Roof Jefferson, the current chief executive of Wessex Water, received a 14% pay increase from 590,000 to £671,000, well above inflation. Environment agency data shows that last year the company released 190,000 to 666 six hours of raw sewage into the waterways, equivalent to about 21 years of continuous spillage.
How many of our constituents got a 14% pay rise for failing to do their job so spectacularly? People recognize it for what it is. Mutual ownership by customers would put an end to this mockery. It would allow profits to excuse me, to instead being reinvested in infrastructure. It would, rather than being paid to shareholders. Thank you. It would allow legally binding priorities to be said that they have to protect the environment.
Thank you. And. Sorry. Yes. Thank you.
Our local waste water company is Wessex Water. Their former chief executive, Colin Skellett, received £170,000 bonus from parent company YTL utilities UK in 2024, despite a government ban on performance related payments following criminal pollution convictions. Accounts covering the period to June 2025 show the Malaysian owned parent company paid Mr. Skellett total remuneration of £693,000. Wessex Water was subject to a bonus ban after being criminally convicted in November 2024 over a sewage pumping station failure.
My hon. Friend the member for East Somerset came out passionately to condemn this. However, I am sorry to say that since then things have not got any better. Our rivers are not cleaner, our infrastructure has not seen significant upgrades, our water bills have not gone down. But Roof Jefferson, the current chief executive of Wessex Water, received a 14% pay increase from 590,000 to £671,000, well above inflation. Environment agency data shows that last year the company released 190,000 to 666 six hours of raw sewage into the waterways, equivalent to about 21 years of continuous spillage.
How many of our constituents got a 14% pay rise for failing to do their job so spectacularly? People recognize it for what it is. Mutual ownership by customers would put an end to this mockery. It would allow profits to excuse me, to instead being reinvested in infrastructure. It would, rather than being paid to shareholders. Thank you. It would allow legally binding priorities to be said that they have to protect the environment.
Thank you. And. Sorry. Yes. Thank you.
17:25
17:25
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
you very much. I thank you for your intervention very much. Thank you. Yes. What I was trying to say that it would allow profits to be reinvested in infrastructure rather than being given to shareholders, and it would allow legally binding priorities to be set. That would that would say that they had to protect the environment and and provide clean water and provide standards around that , which we don't have at the moment.
I just want to say one other thing, and that is that it's not just the default local water company that owns that deals with waste water on, on many modern estates, private companies that are separate to the default water company for the area are taking the waste, and there are no guarantees. If they fail, then the water, the responsibility for that waste would revert to Wessex Water in our case, and they may end up taking on even more inadequate infrastructure than they've already got.
So I think that's something else that should be considered when we're discussing this issue. Rachael Maskell
I just want to say one other thing, and that is that it's not just the default local water company that owns that deals with waste water on, on many modern estates, private companies that are separate to the default water company for the area are taking the waste, and there are no guarantees. If they fail, then the water, the responsibility for that waste would revert to Wessex Water in our case, and they may end up taking on even more inadequate infrastructure than they've already got.
So I think that's something else that should be considered when we're discussing this issue. Rachael Maskell
17:26
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Thank you, miss. We have all seen the price of failure. Dirty business hit us hard with the true cost, the human cost, the scale of sewage and chemicals, which Professor Alastair Boxall is drawing to our attention . In looking at how pollutants are destroying our river health, the ecology and causing our rivers to die, but also the money, the power, how that flows, the revolving doors, the completely unaccountable power within the water industry.
And of course, when we see the revolving doors between regulators and companies, we know that we cannot trust the system. Our constituents cannot trust the system as they are paying more, as they are fleeced to pay for the profits of these companies, of these now millionaires who are allowing sewage to run through our cities, as York has the second worst polluted river, the River Ouse. As we see floods and droughts in our city, burst pipes which are unaddressed for days, and also the cost to our constituents.
So we must. And I say to the minister, she must bring water into public ownership, and not to prevaricate or to look for a different route. But plain and simple, let's just get on with it. We've heard how we can bring forward a SAR to bring those companies, those contracts, back into public hands. But also, I say to the minister, as I have looked at this issue over the summer, how we hold public institutions to account is also of vital importance, because we know that the Who makes decisions is really important.
But how the public has a say and how we as politicians for so long, often all we can do is come to this place and please use our campaigning platform to speak of the challenges we see, but we don't have power and leverage over systems. So I say to the minister, in setting up public ownership, it's really important that we have leverage over the system, but also the public. Do the public have the ability, through a deliberative process and a citizens assembly, to hold water companies in a public ownership, a public company to account so that they can get the answers that they deserve? I have gone.
And of course, when we see the revolving doors between regulators and companies, we know that we cannot trust the system. Our constituents cannot trust the system as they are paying more, as they are fleeced to pay for the profits of these companies, of these now millionaires who are allowing sewage to run through our cities, as York has the second worst polluted river, the River Ouse. As we see floods and droughts in our city, burst pipes which are unaddressed for days, and also the cost to our constituents.
So we must. And I say to the minister, she must bring water into public ownership, and not to prevaricate or to look for a different route. But plain and simple, let's just get on with it. We've heard how we can bring forward a SAR to bring those companies, those contracts, back into public hands. But also, I say to the minister, as I have looked at this issue over the summer, how we hold public institutions to account is also of vital importance, because we know that the Who makes decisions is really important.
But how the public has a say and how we as politicians for so long, often all we can do is come to this place and please use our campaigning platform to speak of the challenges we see, but we don't have power and leverage over systems. So I say to the minister, in setting up public ownership, it's really important that we have leverage over the system, but also the public. Do the public have the ability, through a deliberative process and a citizens assembly, to hold water companies in a public ownership, a public company to account so that they can get the answers that they deserve? I have gone.
17:28
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
Thank you, Mr. Parker. It's a pleasure to be serving under your chairship. Can I also thank the honourable member for Crown Valley for presenting this debate, a debate that could not have come at a more poignant time for my constituents of Birmingham, Perry Barr, because just weeks ago, flash flooding tore through properties. More than 60 homes suffered internal flooding. In the worst cases, water reached one metre deep, and amongst those affected, an elderly man with limited mobility who had to leave his home.
A mother caring for a severely disabled daughter who was at risk of losing the electricity supply needed to maintain essential medical equipment. These are just a few examples to show the severity of the challenge we face and the human cost that comes with inaction. Worse still, this is not new. Perry Beach is flooded badly ten years ago. We have known for years that this neighbourhood is vulnerable. And yet, in spite of that, our infrastructure remains unfixed, our manhole covers remain blocked, and our rivers continue to flow with sewage and waste, not to mention the subsidence across our city because of leaking water pipes.
The cost of our water companies doing nothing is paid in ruined homes, destroyed possessions and frightened families. So what are my constituents paying for Severn Trent? Average combined household bill has risen by around 10% this year, and yet they find themselves paying more for less. You know, an industry is broken when company can record more than 36,000 sewage spills, lasting more than 200 zero zero zero hours, and still achieve the Government Environment Agency's top four star environmental rating.
Privatisation was sold or give way. I
A mother caring for a severely disabled daughter who was at risk of losing the electricity supply needed to maintain essential medical equipment. These are just a few examples to show the severity of the challenge we face and the human cost that comes with inaction. Worse still, this is not new. Perry Beach is flooded badly ten years ago. We have known for years that this neighbourhood is vulnerable. And yet, in spite of that, our infrastructure remains unfixed, our manhole covers remain blocked, and our rivers continue to flow with sewage and waste, not to mention the subsidence across our city because of leaking water pipes.
The cost of our water companies doing nothing is paid in ruined homes, destroyed possessions and frightened families. So what are my constituents paying for Severn Trent? Average combined household bill has risen by around 10% this year, and yet they find themselves paying more for less. You know, an industry is broken when company can record more than 36,000 sewage spills, lasting more than 200 zero zero zero hours, and still achieve the Government Environment Agency's top four star environmental rating.
Privatisation was sold or give way. I
17:30
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
thank the honourable member for giving way. We've heard lots about our constituents getting sick. One of my constituents was hospitalised just a few weeks ago. And on his point about the Environment Agency's ratings, Surfers Against Sewage say that 80% of hospitalisations actually come from good and excellent bathing waters, as judged by the Environment Agency. So does he agree with me that it's a nonsense to have a regulator like that?
17:30
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
Absolutely. And by way of example, how can some organisation receive a four star rating when they are performing so badly? I totally agree with my honourable member, but privatisation was sold on the promise that private capital would deliver investment and relieve pressure on the public purse. But with Thames Water amassing £20 billion in debt and a due a government bailout, that's clearly not the case anymore. Around the world, 90% of water is in public ownership and yet 100% of ours is privately owned.
And while it's not always wise to follow the crowd, this is clearly something that we've gotten wrong. My constituents are not asking Parliament to pretend that public ownership has no cost. They knew it has a price. All they are asking us is to find out whether the price can really be greater than chronic underinvestment. Rising bills, sewage filled rivers, flooded homes and a system in which the public carries the risk. While private investors take all the reward.
Thank you chair.
And while it's not always wise to follow the crowd, this is clearly something that we've gotten wrong. My constituents are not asking Parliament to pretend that public ownership has no cost. They knew it has a price. All they are asking us is to find out whether the price can really be greater than chronic underinvestment. Rising bills, sewage filled rivers, flooded homes and a system in which the public carries the risk. While private investors take all the reward.
Thank you chair.
17:31
17:32
Speaker 25
-
Speaker 25
Water is a basic natural resource. It's essential for public health and hygiene. But it's also trapped in one of the largest ever private monopolies. You can't choose a less polluted waterway. You can't stop paying bills that rise faster than inflation. And you can't even change suppliers, as others have said. Under Thatcher, our water and sewage system was sold off with a clean slate, £5 billion in debt was wiped and companies were given a cash boost to the tune of £1.5 billion.
Since 1989, Yorkshire Water has paid shareholders £7.6 billion in dividends and it has £6.2 billion in debt. It's unacceptable. It's resident bill payers that have paid the price. Every promise of a better system has completely collapsed under the weight of this monopoly. On a city street in Upperthorpe, in my constituency, residents are no longer or no stranger to jets of water coming out of the ground. It's not the first, second, or even the third time that they've seen a burst men, but the fourth and these are no longer unique occurrences.
They are endemic to a system that is at breaking point and we have to be transparent. Mounting corporate greed across England won't be wished away by making it easier to sack failing chief executives or imposing greater fines on companies. The personnel aren't the problem. It's the system of deriving massive profit from life's essential needs. And whilst I welcome the government's planned reforms, I have to urge them that we must go further than public control and regulation, and work to bring the system back into house.
434 of my constituents have signed the petition that we are discussing today. 440 more in Walkley have signed the local activist, Hannah Cawley's petition calling for water to be brought into public ownership. They are calling for an end to stakeholder payouts, to cleaner rivers, to lower bills and real accountability. And it's the least that they deserve. Sheffield, like the rest of the country, has paid enough for this failure. It's time to bring water back into public ownership, and it's time to put the people who depend on it first.
Since 1989, Yorkshire Water has paid shareholders £7.6 billion in dividends and it has £6.2 billion in debt. It's unacceptable. It's resident bill payers that have paid the price. Every promise of a better system has completely collapsed under the weight of this monopoly. On a city street in Upperthorpe, in my constituency, residents are no longer or no stranger to jets of water coming out of the ground. It's not the first, second, or even the third time that they've seen a burst men, but the fourth and these are no longer unique occurrences.
They are endemic to a system that is at breaking point and we have to be transparent. Mounting corporate greed across England won't be wished away by making it easier to sack failing chief executives or imposing greater fines on companies. The personnel aren't the problem. It's the system of deriving massive profit from life's essential needs. And whilst I welcome the government's planned reforms, I have to urge them that we must go further than public control and regulation, and work to bring the system back into house.
434 of my constituents have signed the petition that we are discussing today. 440 more in Walkley have signed the local activist, Hannah Cawley's petition calling for water to be brought into public ownership. They are calling for an end to stakeholder payouts, to cleaner rivers, to lower bills and real accountability. And it's the least that they deserve. Sheffield, like the rest of the country, has paid enough for this failure. It's time to bring water back into public ownership, and it's time to put the people who depend on it first.
17:34
17:34
Speaker 24
-
Speaker 24
Thank you. Mr. Barker, it's a pleasure to serve under your chairship after successive years of failure. We need a water sector that serves people, not profit. We in the Green Party have long made a cast iron pledge to support bringing water back into public ownership. I attempted to expand the powers of the Water Special Measures Bill to enable environmental failures, not just insolvency, to trigger government intervention. And I backed a cross-party amendment on mutual ownership.
The government rejected both, and public ownership itself was denied any place in the legislation by the minister. Over the last three and a half decades, we've seen companies ripping off consumers while failing to invest in our crumbling infrastructure while investors
The government rejected both, and public ownership itself was denied any place in the legislation by the minister. Over the last three and a half decades, we've seen companies ripping off consumers while failing to invest in our crumbling infrastructure while investors
17:35
17:35
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Investors receive billions in dividends, the system needs its biggest ever investment program. Over 50 billion has been pocketed by shareholders since privatisation, while around 16 billion is needed in the next few years just to fix storm overflows and solve poisonous nitrate pollution, instead of pouring money into profits and managing failure. We need to build a system that's fit for the future, and it's no wonder this privatisation experiment has failed. Water is a public resource and a natural monopoly.
But when it comes to the solutions, fantastical figures are used to scare off pursuit of public ownership. The figure of 90 billion was first cooked up by the Social Market Foundation report, paid for by oh four prominent members of the water sector. The government could leave the debt with debt holders and look at alternative models, such as Commonwealth's economic assessment, reflecting years of neglected infrastructure, companies struggling with insolvency and debt leveraging for commercial survival. While costs would be incurred in the facilitating the transfer, an honest valuation would put public ownership within reach, with company debt and statutory fines loaded onto bills.
Record sewage spills and billions in dividend payouts. I implore the government to set out a timetable to restore our water back into public ownership and end Thatcher's failed 37 year privatisation experiment.
But when it comes to the solutions, fantastical figures are used to scare off pursuit of public ownership. The figure of 90 billion was first cooked up by the Social Market Foundation report, paid for by oh four prominent members of the water sector. The government could leave the debt with debt holders and look at alternative models, such as Commonwealth's economic assessment, reflecting years of neglected infrastructure, companies struggling with insolvency and debt leveraging for commercial survival. While costs would be incurred in the facilitating the transfer, an honest valuation would put public ownership within reach, with company debt and statutory fines loaded onto bills.
Record sewage spills and billions in dividend payouts. I implore the government to set out a timetable to restore our water back into public ownership and end Thatcher's failed 37 year privatisation experiment.
17:36
17:36
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Privatisation of water was one of the biggest cons in British history. Instead, we've seen water bills rising by 44% in real terms since privatisation, rivers polluted, infrastructure deteriorating and shareholders extracting to the tune of £85 billion from our water industry. And regulation has failed to fix it. We've got to be honest about that. Water companies have been fined millions of pounds so far, but that has demonstrably failed to change their behaviour and chronic underfunding of the Environment Agency and failures by Ofwat have meant that even the limited regulatory powers available have too often gone unnoticed , unenforced.
So I'm pleased that the current Prime Minister understands these issues, because it is time to bring water back into public ownership. And there's an economic case for doing this. Professor David Hall Research estimates that public ownership could reduce financing costs by between 3.2 billion and £5.8 billion a year. That's money that could be invested in repairing pipes, tackling leakages, improving sewage infrastructure, protecting our rivers and keeping bills affordable.
But I have to stress that public ownership has got to mean much more than putting a government sign above the door. When we talk about public control, this can't just be some sort of franchise model with the pretence of overarching government control. Nor can it be the odd token councillor sitting on a water company board. This will solve nothing. We need regional, publicly owned water companies with democratic accountability and meaningful representation for workers, customers and communities.
The revenues from water bills should operate and improve the service, not provide returns to shareholders. Investment should be planned for the long term, and environmental protection has got to be at the very heart of this industry. And of course, it has a cost. We have to be honest, but we already know from research that public ownership would pay for itself within around seven years with savings thereafter. We don't need a referendum.
We need to take water back into public ownership now.
So I'm pleased that the current Prime Minister understands these issues, because it is time to bring water back into public ownership. And there's an economic case for doing this. Professor David Hall Research estimates that public ownership could reduce financing costs by between 3.2 billion and £5.8 billion a year. That's money that could be invested in repairing pipes, tackling leakages, improving sewage infrastructure, protecting our rivers and keeping bills affordable.
But I have to stress that public ownership has got to mean much more than putting a government sign above the door. When we talk about public control, this can't just be some sort of franchise model with the pretence of overarching government control. Nor can it be the odd token councillor sitting on a water company board. This will solve nothing. We need regional, publicly owned water companies with democratic accountability and meaningful representation for workers, customers and communities.
The revenues from water bills should operate and improve the service, not provide returns to shareholders. Investment should be planned for the long term, and environmental protection has got to be at the very heart of this industry. And of course, it has a cost. We have to be honest, but we already know from research that public ownership would pay for itself within around seven years with savings thereafter. We don't need a referendum.
We need to take water back into public ownership now.
17:38
17:39
17:39
Speaker 27
-
Speaker 27
Thank you, Madam Chair. I congratulate the member for Collin for his very eloquent speech and everyone who signed this petition and people who turned up in the gallery today. It shows how much interest there is in this. Madam chair, since the water companies were privatised, they have paid out billions in profits. They've taken on billions worth of debt. They've paid out millions of pounds worth of bonuses, they've put up bills. We've had hosepipe bans, and we're also have sewage discharging into our local streams and to different beaches and waterways.
I will give way, sir.
I will give way, sir.
17:39
Speaker 26
-
Speaker 26
Thank you for giving way. Surfers Against Sewage is submission to the Independent Water Commission, looked at five different public interest models for the water industry, each with its own strengths. Does my honourable friend agree with me that there should be a culture of accountability to the wider public, and not just the shareholders?
17:40
Speaker 27
-
Speaker 27
I completely agree with my honourable friend. All these issues I've just highlighted, that was an absolute failure of regulation over decades, and it is absolutely time that we reform the way water companies are structured and the way they are owned and the way that they are run. Because when we have sewage pouring into chalk streams that we have in Winchester, the River Itchen, River Meon next door, the beautiful test valley. These are very unique habitats.
That biodiversity is unique. These are sites of special scientific interest. The salmon in southern chalk streams are genetically distinct from the salmon that we see in the rest of the Atlantic Ocean. And so when we have sewage and pollution destroying this type of habitat, this is ecological vandalism. It's also a matter of affecting businesses. I had a farmer contact me because he had sewage discharge from southern water ruining his crops, and he had to get me and my office involved, even just to enter into conversation with the water company to get the compensation that he deserved.
It also affects health. And just last week, I heard from a mother whose three year old baby has now been hospitalised with potential liver failure because he is playing in a stream where they're unaware that there's sewage being discharged into the waterways. I also heard from a woman who got very sick from paddleboarding in a stream. She's unaware there's a sewage discharge further upstream. This is affecting businesses. This is affecting health and it's also affecting our local environment.
I just want to pay tribute. Madam chair, before I finish to the amazing citizen scientists who have been dedicated in working to gather data so we can hold water companies to account, and so that we know what the actual situation is on the ground. There's a handful here at the Winchester Downs Cluster, upper Itchen restoration group, Environmental Farmers Group. We've also got one of our amazing councillors, Margo Power and Aylesford has been for decades taking samples of invertebrates in the river to measure the health and also to the the southern walk to crew that work on the ground.
When there is a flood or a discharge or a drain that needs unblocking. Often in terrible weather, often late at night. Those guys are doing a brilliant job and they're working within companies and not fit for purpose. They're working within a system that needs to be reformed, and we need to ensure that they have all the support they need to make sure we've got fresh water, a clean environment, and people's bills are not going up .
While while directors are getting huge bonuses.
That biodiversity is unique. These are sites of special scientific interest. The salmon in southern chalk streams are genetically distinct from the salmon that we see in the rest of the Atlantic Ocean. And so when we have sewage and pollution destroying this type of habitat, this is ecological vandalism. It's also a matter of affecting businesses. I had a farmer contact me because he had sewage discharge from southern water ruining his crops, and he had to get me and my office involved, even just to enter into conversation with the water company to get the compensation that he deserved.
It also affects health. And just last week, I heard from a mother whose three year old baby has now been hospitalised with potential liver failure because he is playing in a stream where they're unaware that there's sewage being discharged into the waterways. I also heard from a woman who got very sick from paddleboarding in a stream. She's unaware there's a sewage discharge further upstream. This is affecting businesses. This is affecting health and it's also affecting our local environment.
I just want to pay tribute. Madam chair, before I finish to the amazing citizen scientists who have been dedicated in working to gather data so we can hold water companies to account, and so that we know what the actual situation is on the ground. There's a handful here at the Winchester Downs Cluster, upper Itchen restoration group, Environmental Farmers Group. We've also got one of our amazing councillors, Margo Power and Aylesford has been for decades taking samples of invertebrates in the river to measure the health and also to the the southern walk to crew that work on the ground.
When there is a flood or a discharge or a drain that needs unblocking. Often in terrible weather, often late at night. Those guys are doing a brilliant job and they're working within companies and not fit for purpose. They're working within a system that needs to be reformed, and we need to ensure that they have all the support they need to make sure we've got fresh water, a clean environment, and people's bills are not going up .
While while directors are getting huge bonuses.
17:42
17:42
17:42
Speaker 28
-
Speaker 28
Customers have seen their bills rise by 22% this year and expected to rise by a further 47% by 2029. And at the same time, Severn Trent reported pre-tax profits of £320 million in the last financial year, and Severn Trent long term incentive plan could raise the chief execs annual remuneration to a staggering £3.1 million in 2024. Seven Trent were responsible for more than 300 pollution incidents, and in 2023 they were responsible for over 60,000 sewage overflows.
And indeed, recently in Paddock Rise and Trenton had to deal with a most appalling situation of raw sewage in their street, presenting a very serious public health risk. And I have raised many times the challenges faced by the village of Upper Tyne. Constant flooding, blown manhole covers, their children, playground and recreation ground flooded with sewage, water and dead rivers with no fish. New developments are creating additional challenges and whilst water companies are consulted in planning applications, they are under no statutory obligation to ensure they upgrade their mains infrastructure to meet increasing demand.
Developers meet obligations as they should. Water companies should also do so, especially if we are intending to build 1.5 million homes. It is fundamentally wrong. My constituents in Stoke on Trent South are facing higher water bills and poor services, while profits are siphoned off to shareholders and chief execs pockets. Basic necessities which we all need to survive should not be privatised and subject to profit incentives. Water is a basic human right.
Miss Barker, our water should be under public ownership, not control, whatever that means. And I would appreciate if the Minister could provide any clarity on that difference. We need to listen to the 280 000 people who signed the petition. We need a water renationalisation plan now and ownership of our water return back to the people of this country and out of the hands of shareholders owned by us. Run for us.
And indeed, recently in Paddock Rise and Trenton had to deal with a most appalling situation of raw sewage in their street, presenting a very serious public health risk. And I have raised many times the challenges faced by the village of Upper Tyne. Constant flooding, blown manhole covers, their children, playground and recreation ground flooded with sewage, water and dead rivers with no fish. New developments are creating additional challenges and whilst water companies are consulted in planning applications, they are under no statutory obligation to ensure they upgrade their mains infrastructure to meet increasing demand.
Developers meet obligations as they should. Water companies should also do so, especially if we are intending to build 1.5 million homes. It is fundamentally wrong. My constituents in Stoke on Trent South are facing higher water bills and poor services, while profits are siphoned off to shareholders and chief execs pockets. Basic necessities which we all need to survive should not be privatised and subject to profit incentives. Water is a basic human right.
Miss Barker, our water should be under public ownership, not control, whatever that means. And I would appreciate if the Minister could provide any clarity on that difference. We need to listen to the 280 000 people who signed the petition. We need a water renationalisation plan now and ownership of our water return back to the people of this country and out of the hands of shareholders owned by us. Run for us.
17:45
17:45
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
It is a pleasure to serve under your chair. It is of no surprise to me at all that the second highest amount of signatures on this petition were from my constituents for at least six years now. Whitstable, in my constituency, has been plagued by frequent releases of sewage pouring out into our sea. The combined sewage overflows, or CSO, are supposed to occur only in the event of extremely heavy rainfall or storms. Yet every single time a drop or two of rain falls from the sky, we get alerts and within minutes my inbox will start to ping.
In 2021, I held my first public meeting with residents able to directly challenge the bosses of Southern Water. It was very similar to those public meetings shown in Dirty Business, Channel Four's outstanding docudrama. The executives seemed to be taken aback and taken by surprise at the frustration, anger and demand for answers. I suspect they really thought we might all be fobbed off by the kind of generic non-answers I'd been receiving as the local MP and as a member of the committee.
Whitstable has been plagued by this for years, and also the smell of an unmanned treatment works. The smell was so bad they couldn't hang out their washing or allow their children to play in the nearby play area. The headaches, the visible sanitary products and human waste were revolting, and they regularly heard frequent alarms and unmanned building that nobody was responding to in the early hours of the morning. At that meeting, SOS Whitstable met and formed an extremely active campaigning group who went on to raise a petition on water privatisation, which we delivered to number ten in December 2022, and it has now exceeded 250,000 signatures just to make the water company's private public again.
Sorry, I always do that. I held another public meeting in the next two summers, which essentially were people just getting so let down. Southern water showed us a slide show of excuses and investments they've been making. But fast forward through campaigns and debates in this place, endless private meetings. All my constituents agree we need public ownership now.
In 2021, I held my first public meeting with residents able to directly challenge the bosses of Southern Water. It was very similar to those public meetings shown in Dirty Business, Channel Four's outstanding docudrama. The executives seemed to be taken aback and taken by surprise at the frustration, anger and demand for answers. I suspect they really thought we might all be fobbed off by the kind of generic non-answers I'd been receiving as the local MP and as a member of the committee.
Whitstable has been plagued by this for years, and also the smell of an unmanned treatment works. The smell was so bad they couldn't hang out their washing or allow their children to play in the nearby play area. The headaches, the visible sanitary products and human waste were revolting, and they regularly heard frequent alarms and unmanned building that nobody was responding to in the early hours of the morning. At that meeting, SOS Whitstable met and formed an extremely active campaigning group who went on to raise a petition on water privatisation, which we delivered to number ten in December 2022, and it has now exceeded 250,000 signatures just to make the water company's private public again.
Sorry, I always do that. I held another public meeting in the next two summers, which essentially were people just getting so let down. Southern water showed us a slide show of excuses and investments they've been making. But fast forward through campaigns and debates in this place, endless private meetings. All my constituents agree we need public ownership now.
17:47
Speaker 29
-
Speaker 29
And it's a pleasure to serve under your chair. First, let me thank the honourable member for Colne Valley for securing this debate. Now, what should be at the centre of a discussion about public ownership of water? I think public health. Imagine a family spending an afternoon beside a river. The children are playing near the bank. One asks whether they can paddle. The parent looks at the water and hesitates.
Now you may think that's because the river is deep or flowing quickly, and you might be right. But just as importantly, they don't know what's being discharged into it. And that should concern every one of us. In Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, the rivers connect our towns and surrounding villages. They should be places that communities enjoy and take pride in, not places where parents feel they must warn their children away. Yet when we discuss the water and sewage companies, the conversation too often begins with the company finances and ends with arguments about regulators.
But I think we should begin with the family beside the river. Now, Julie is the mother of Heather, who was just eight when she died in 1999 after contracting E coli during a family holiday in Devon. Her family's story, featured in the channel four drama that we've heard about. Now, Julie continues to speak out so that Heather is not forgotten and other families understand the risks. But behind that campaigning is a mother who should have been watching her daughter grow up.
Now, that's why I believe the cause, the case for public ownership, for our water and sewage companies must be made in terms of the people this essential service exists to protect. The purpose of the water system should be straightforward to provide clean, safe water. We need to have water and sewage companies that have more actual engineers than financial engineers. Our constituents should not have to become experts in the sewage discharge maps before deciding whether to enjoy their local river.
No parent should be left wondering whether an ordinary afternoon outdoors puts their child's health at risk. Now, we cannot promise that open water will ever be entirely risk free, but we can insist that preventable pollution is treated with the seriousness it deserves. Water is essential to life, and the way we own and manage it must reflect that. Thank you.
Now you may think that's because the river is deep or flowing quickly, and you might be right. But just as importantly, they don't know what's being discharged into it. And that should concern every one of us. In Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, the rivers connect our towns and surrounding villages. They should be places that communities enjoy and take pride in, not places where parents feel they must warn their children away. Yet when we discuss the water and sewage companies, the conversation too often begins with the company finances and ends with arguments about regulators.
But I think we should begin with the family beside the river. Now, Julie is the mother of Heather, who was just eight when she died in 1999 after contracting E coli during a family holiday in Devon. Her family's story, featured in the channel four drama that we've heard about. Now, Julie continues to speak out so that Heather is not forgotten and other families understand the risks. But behind that campaigning is a mother who should have been watching her daughter grow up.
Now, that's why I believe the cause, the case for public ownership, for our water and sewage companies must be made in terms of the people this essential service exists to protect. The purpose of the water system should be straightforward to provide clean, safe water. We need to have water and sewage companies that have more actual engineers than financial engineers. Our constituents should not have to become experts in the sewage discharge maps before deciding whether to enjoy their local river.
No parent should be left wondering whether an ordinary afternoon outdoors puts their child's health at risk. Now, we cannot promise that open water will ever be entirely risk free, but we can insist that preventable pollution is treated with the seriousness it deserves. Water is essential to life, and the way we own and manage it must reflect that. Thank you.
17:49
17:49
Speaker 30
-
Speaker 30
It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Sometimes public ownership is best, sometimes private. I have no ideological view either way, but when it comes to the water industry, privatisation has been nothing short of disastrous. The main reason for that was inadequate regulation in their blind assault on quangos and the civil service, which continues to this day. The conservatives cut funding for the regulator so badly that it entirely lost the ability to do its job.
No one noticed all the sewage going into our waterways because there was no one left to look. Left to their own devices, water company bosses responded by extracting billions from the industry in excess profits, while allowing the fabric of the system to slowly rot. It's all been exposed now and we know the sorry truth. But however angry we feel in most cases that money can't be recovered because the original investors have sold out long ago.
In my own area of Horsham, West Sussex, Southern Water were one of the worst offenders. Things were so bad that the former CEO, Matthew Wright, now faces criminal charges for presiding over fraudulent sewage data. Painful as it is, we are now obliged to pay for the same infrastructure investment all over again through higher bills. I will. I'm very grateful to. My hon.
No one noticed all the sewage going into our waterways because there was no one left to look. Left to their own devices, water company bosses responded by extracting billions from the industry in excess profits, while allowing the fabric of the system to slowly rot. It's all been exposed now and we know the sorry truth. But however angry we feel in most cases that money can't be recovered because the original investors have sold out long ago.
In my own area of Horsham, West Sussex, Southern Water were one of the worst offenders. Things were so bad that the former CEO, Matthew Wright, now faces criminal charges for presiding over fraudulent sewage data. Painful as it is, we are now obliged to pay for the same infrastructure investment all over again through higher bills. I will. I'm very grateful to. My hon.
17:51
Speaker 31
-
Speaker 31
Friend for giving way. My constituents have strongly supported this petition. They've done so because they feel ripped off by Thames Water. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the government's refusal to consider special administration for Thames sends a signal to all other water companies that investing money in paying off bondholders is more important than sorting out the mess that is their infrastructure.
17:51
Speaker 30
-
Speaker 30
I thank him for the intervention. He makes a strong point, which I very much agree with. We have to find the funds to fix decades of neglect. At the same time as a crisis in the national budget, for this to happen, it is absolutely essential that we are able to trust the water companies to do their job. Honestly, second time around. I flat out don't believe that we can do that without changing the present system of private ownership.
Personally, I'm not opposed to renationalisation if it really can be done for free. But I'd be more confident in asking for a mutual mutual ownership structure because that is clearly achievable. Mutual ownership prevents excess bonuses and profiteering. Residents can be confident that any new public money going into the industry will be spent on genuine improvements. Alongside that, we do need a stronger regulator with the power to enforce quality. Well, more than 200,000 people have signed this petition.
That is a huge number, but I don't doubt that many millions more would do so if they were aware of it. We put our blind trust in the water industry once and it was abused. Once is enough.
Personally, I'm not opposed to renationalisation if it really can be done for free. But I'd be more confident in asking for a mutual mutual ownership structure because that is clearly achievable. Mutual ownership prevents excess bonuses and profiteering. Residents can be confident that any new public money going into the industry will be spent on genuine improvements. Alongside that, we do need a stronger regulator with the power to enforce quality. Well, more than 200,000 people have signed this petition.
That is a huge number, but I don't doubt that many millions more would do so if they were aware of it. We put our blind trust in the water industry once and it was abused. Once is enough.
17:52
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you chair. And I say what a pleasure it is to serve in your chair. As you were, you were a wonder as the MP for half of England's best island. I feel uniquely placed to speak about the state of our water sector. Quite frankly, I think my constituents would never forgive me if I didn't use this opportunity to highlight just how unacceptable the situation has become. Since the 24 election, there have been 14,902 hours of sewage in my constituency alone.
Across the island, that figure rises to 26,682 hours. It's little wonder that islanders feel utterly frustrated and let down, and increasingly skeptical of the system that is supposed to be delivering for them. All those private companies can genuinely be trusted to act in their best interests on the island. We are immensely proud of our 57 miles of Unesco biosphere recognised coastline. It's part of what makes the Isle of Wight so special. But it is also why so many islanders find themselves utterly dumbfounded.
The Prime Minister received a lot of flak last week for his comments about the damaging impact of privatisation over the 1980s. The benches opposite. I mean, not you guys. I mean the benches opposite those remarks. But I don't think even they could argue that the state of our water industry represents a ringing endorsement of Margaret Thatcher's project of privatisation. Private equity has become so effective that fear mongering that governments of all colours are reluctant to challenge the status quo.
We hear figures from these companies that see our basic utilities as huge pound signs suggesting that public ownership would cost £100 billion and put workers or pension funds at risk. The evidence from the People's Commission suggests that public ownership could deliver much fairer and more sustainable system than the one we have today. That is why we need to stop placing private equity on a pedestal. Water is not a luxury. It is an essential public service.
My preference will always be public control, especially when private companies have blown their chance. If you measure them on performance, investment and public trust and have resorted to fear stories about the alternatives. Our promise of hope in every heart and growth in every postcode will not feel real or achievable. If people cannot do something as basic as trust the water that comes out of their tap or safely swim in the seas that surround them.
Across the island, that figure rises to 26,682 hours. It's little wonder that islanders feel utterly frustrated and let down, and increasingly skeptical of the system that is supposed to be delivering for them. All those private companies can genuinely be trusted to act in their best interests on the island. We are immensely proud of our 57 miles of Unesco biosphere recognised coastline. It's part of what makes the Isle of Wight so special. But it is also why so many islanders find themselves utterly dumbfounded.
The Prime Minister received a lot of flak last week for his comments about the damaging impact of privatisation over the 1980s. The benches opposite. I mean, not you guys. I mean the benches opposite those remarks. But I don't think even they could argue that the state of our water industry represents a ringing endorsement of Margaret Thatcher's project of privatisation. Private equity has become so effective that fear mongering that governments of all colours are reluctant to challenge the status quo.
We hear figures from these companies that see our basic utilities as huge pound signs suggesting that public ownership would cost £100 billion and put workers or pension funds at risk. The evidence from the People's Commission suggests that public ownership could deliver much fairer and more sustainable system than the one we have today. That is why we need to stop placing private equity on a pedestal. Water is not a luxury. It is an essential public service.
My preference will always be public control, especially when private companies have blown their chance. If you measure them on performance, investment and public trust and have resorted to fear stories about the alternatives. Our promise of hope in every heart and growth in every postcode will not feel real or achievable. If people cannot do something as basic as trust the water that comes out of their tap or safely swim in the seas that surround them.
17:54
17:54
17:54
Speaker 32
-
Speaker 32
case of public ownership of our water is unanswerable. We can all see the money being swindled out of the British public by the privatised system. We can all see the sewage pollution going on even during a summer of drought, and I beg the Minister, in her response not to repeat the bogus figures that some use to argue that public ownership of one of our most essential national resources would be too expensive. Those claims have been so comprehensively debunked that using them now is just getting embarrassing.
Chair, the truth is that the cost of. Of the societal impacts of failing to take back control of our water resources would be far higher than. Than taking action now, because ludicrously, for a country as wet as ours, we are on course for a water deficit of more than 6,000,000,000l of water every single day in the next 30 years. And yet, the truth is that there is currently no credible plan to avert this.
All the reservoirs that are that we currently have planned will only reduce that deficit by a meagre 13%, and there is no realistic prospect of water companies hitting their efficiency targets. They have signed up for either. And that is before the speculative proliferation of data centres claims its thirsty share of our dwindling resources. So in all likelihood, we will face further and severe water shortfalls in the future. And fire services are already warning that water pressure in many areas is dangerously low for fighting the new season of wildfires we also face, and communities in my constituency have already seen the taps running dry.
So in the future we will have to choose what we do and do not use water for, and we cannot have a situation where our democracy has to mediate that fundamental question of national security through the interests of private companies that have proven beyond all doubt that their overwhelming priority will always be profit. We cannot afford to leave our water in the hands of private vested interests. It must be brought back into public ownership. Irene Campbell.
Chair, the truth is that the cost of. Of the societal impacts of failing to take back control of our water resources would be far higher than. Than taking action now, because ludicrously, for a country as wet as ours, we are on course for a water deficit of more than 6,000,000,000l of water every single day in the next 30 years. And yet, the truth is that there is currently no credible plan to avert this.
All the reservoirs that are that we currently have planned will only reduce that deficit by a meagre 13%, and there is no realistic prospect of water companies hitting their efficiency targets. They have signed up for either. And that is before the speculative proliferation of data centres claims its thirsty share of our dwindling resources. So in all likelihood, we will face further and severe water shortfalls in the future. And fire services are already warning that water pressure in many areas is dangerously low for fighting the new season of wildfires we also face, and communities in my constituency have already seen the taps running dry.
So in the future we will have to choose what we do and do not use water for, and we cannot have a situation where our democracy has to mediate that fundamental question of national security through the interests of private companies that have proven beyond all doubt that their overwhelming priority will always be profit. We cannot afford to leave our water in the hands of private vested interests. It must be brought back into public ownership. Irene Campbell.
17:57
Speaker 33
-
Speaker 33
Under your chairmanship, I would like to thank my hon. Friend the member for Colne Valley for introducing this important debate. I would also like to congratulate Ash Paul Smith, the petitioner, for all his hard work in creating the petition and gathering over 208,000 signatures. The recent sewage spillages in Saltcoats in my constituency, have greatly affected the bathing water quality in the coastal towns of Saltcoats, Ardrossan and Stevenston and has affected many constituents.
On 29th June this year, a rising main pipeline near Saltcoats pump pumping station burst and there was a high amount of sewage piped into our waters. This led to temporary repairs and took until the 10th of August, as there was apparently no easy or robust solution. The advisory signage at the beach was not as clear as it could have been, and this not only led to complaints, but there was confusion with many swimmers as to the bathing quality of the water, and dog owners too, were querying whether it was safe for dogs to go into the water, which of course it was not.
Only two weeks after the public were told they could swim again, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency confirmed in the 25th August that the pollution was actually ongoing and further work on the pipe is required. This continued for a few days before the advice against bathing was withdrawn and safe swimming could be resumed, and this really just isn't good enough for nearly the whole summer. Constituents and visitors have been unable to swim in so-called Stevenson and Ardrossan.
This is the height of the holiday season, and coastal communities rely on visits from daytrippers, many of whom want to go outdoor swimming and enjoy our beautiful sandy beaches. What I think is key to this, though, it's important to highlight that that this is owned by Scottish Water, a public Scottish Government organisation. In 2021, Scottish Water oversaw untreated sewage, being discharged 12,000 times in a single year. Water bosses are getting paid huge salaries everywhere, it seems, for delivering what exactly? When we take the debate about the water industry in England and Wales back into public ownership, I think it would be a good thing to be back in public ownership.
I think it is important to consider how we successfully manage it. The sewage situation in Saltcoats serves as a reminder that public ownership does not necessarily mean good service. We need to get any future public ownership structures right, with robust accountability and governance in place to ensure a better service is provided.
On 29th June this year, a rising main pipeline near Saltcoats pump pumping station burst and there was a high amount of sewage piped into our waters. This led to temporary repairs and took until the 10th of August, as there was apparently no easy or robust solution. The advisory signage at the beach was not as clear as it could have been, and this not only led to complaints, but there was confusion with many swimmers as to the bathing quality of the water, and dog owners too, were querying whether it was safe for dogs to go into the water, which of course it was not.
Only two weeks after the public were told they could swim again, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency confirmed in the 25th August that the pollution was actually ongoing and further work on the pipe is required. This continued for a few days before the advice against bathing was withdrawn and safe swimming could be resumed, and this really just isn't good enough for nearly the whole summer. Constituents and visitors have been unable to swim in so-called Stevenson and Ardrossan.
This is the height of the holiday season, and coastal communities rely on visits from daytrippers, many of whom want to go outdoor swimming and enjoy our beautiful sandy beaches. What I think is key to this, though, it's important to highlight that that this is owned by Scottish Water, a public Scottish Government organisation. In 2021, Scottish Water oversaw untreated sewage, being discharged 12,000 times in a single year. Water bosses are getting paid huge salaries everywhere, it seems, for delivering what exactly? When we take the debate about the water industry in England and Wales back into public ownership, I think it would be a good thing to be back in public ownership.
I think it is important to consider how we successfully manage it. The sewage situation in Saltcoats serves as a reminder that public ownership does not necessarily mean good service. We need to get any future public ownership structures right, with robust accountability and governance in place to ensure a better service is provided.
17:59
17:59
Speaker 34
-
Speaker 34
Thank you, Mr. Parker. Pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. The question of the water industry strikes at the heart of why so many of our constituents are angry. Angry because they are paying more and getting less. In the case of water, it's even worse than that because my constituents hard earned money is going directly as dividends and bonuses to shareholders and chief executives. Money from my poorest constituents stuffs the pockets of the wealthy, lots of whom don't even live in the UK.
It is perhaps the most backwards redistribution of wealth that we have in this country. For them, it's win win. They continue to profit while we pay higher bills to fix the failure of their reinvestment. Our money flows into these companies, but it is less clear how that money flows out. And this fundamental unfairness is why so many are calling on this place to act. That is why the Prime Minister was right in referring to that control that we've lost over the last 40 years of governments of all colours.
That loss of control has its consequences, and they are no more evident than in the pollution of our rivers and streams. The waters of Burton upon Trent made our town the brewery powerhouse of the world, those magical waters giving home to a global ale empire. But fast forward to today, and research has shown that the River Trent was found to contain more E.coli than your average pub toilet. We see that failure to invest in block drains and clogged sewage systems.
My constituents in Stoke felt this last year when a water main burst on Stanton Road, leaving around 4000 residents without a water service and significant traffic disruption. This is the fault of a system that was poorly designed decades ago and has not been reformed since. Greater public control is not ideological. It is common sense and I am under no illusion the scale of this investment that is required. And I know that cancelling just one set of bonuses isn't going to deliver the scale of upgrades that we need.
We should welcome the Prime Minister's effort to raise the idea of public control, and I am quite happy to consider all options on the table. What I will not accept is the current system is fit for purpose. This failing system is making my constituents poorer, but the rich even richer. And that is why we must act. Sir Jeremy.
It is perhaps the most backwards redistribution of wealth that we have in this country. For them, it's win win. They continue to profit while we pay higher bills to fix the failure of their reinvestment. Our money flows into these companies, but it is less clear how that money flows out. And this fundamental unfairness is why so many are calling on this place to act. That is why the Prime Minister was right in referring to that control that we've lost over the last 40 years of governments of all colours.
That loss of control has its consequences, and they are no more evident than in the pollution of our rivers and streams. The waters of Burton upon Trent made our town the brewery powerhouse of the world, those magical waters giving home to a global ale empire. But fast forward to today, and research has shown that the River Trent was found to contain more E.coli than your average pub toilet. We see that failure to invest in block drains and clogged sewage systems.
My constituents in Stoke felt this last year when a water main burst on Stanton Road, leaving around 4000 residents without a water service and significant traffic disruption. This is the fault of a system that was poorly designed decades ago and has not been reformed since. Greater public control is not ideological. It is common sense and I am under no illusion the scale of this investment that is required. And I know that cancelling just one set of bonuses isn't going to deliver the scale of upgrades that we need.
We should welcome the Prime Minister's effort to raise the idea of public control, and I am quite happy to consider all options on the table. What I will not accept is the current system is fit for purpose. This failing system is making my constituents poorer, but the rich even richer. And that is why we must act. Sir Jeremy.
18:02
Speaker 35
-
Speaker 35
He's the ones we think the conversation on public control of the water industry has fundamentally shifted. We must no longer bury our heads in the sand over the question of public control of the water sector. But we owe our constituents honest answers, not easy answers. I am sure there are a few in this House who could therefore credibly advocate that there is truly a cost free form of nationalisation out there, or for expropriation, as it more honestly should be called.
And I promise that despite my background, I'm very much not that about, oh, it's all about the bond markets guy in this case. I think we all know, however, that there is no scale, no free lunch at scale out there when it comes to the overall cost of funding of the industry. But at the same time, this is an industry that should never have been privatised in the first place, from which immense sums have been extracted over the years, albeit some of our more recent investment expectations under this government have begun to temper that.
But we also know that that extraction is still happening in those egregious cases, such as that of Thames Water. So let me briefly take you through four options for taking back control of the industry. Option one A pragmatic approach to cost free nationalisation , says that even more stringent regulation would bankrupt companies such that we could acquire them for nothing. The problem is, you can get as good a deal with these companies as you like.
The British public would still have to foot the 100 billion plus investment upgrades over the next five years or so. Option two we pay full whack, and I think we all know that our CV is not a fair market valuation. But when you factor in that debt, which really does need to be paid down or taken on, you really are up towards the better part of £100 billion. And even then you have the investment on top of that.
Option three, we wait for the water companies to go bankrupt and then acquire them for next to nothing off what sees ten of those companies with high financial risk. But the government would still have to foot the infrastructure bill on a company by company basis. Cheaper but slower. Option four we start with what the British public actually wants to see from its water system, and have a democratic conversation about what they're willing to invest to solve the problem.
We then work out the impact that has on the value of the industry. But the reality is, I think we've already had that conversation. We know what the British public wants because they've been shouting it from the rooftops, often in wetsuits with surfboards in hand. And I commend the work of the Good Growth Foundation, which I believe has gotten to grips with some of these challenges and opportunities presented by the Special Administration Scheme to take back control of the water industry for the public good and enable us to take those profits and reinvest them back into fixing our water system.
And I promise that despite my background, I'm very much not that about, oh, it's all about the bond markets guy in this case. I think we all know, however, that there is no scale, no free lunch at scale out there when it comes to the overall cost of funding of the industry. But at the same time, this is an industry that should never have been privatised in the first place, from which immense sums have been extracted over the years, albeit some of our more recent investment expectations under this government have begun to temper that.
But we also know that that extraction is still happening in those egregious cases, such as that of Thames Water. So let me briefly take you through four options for taking back control of the industry. Option one A pragmatic approach to cost free nationalisation , says that even more stringent regulation would bankrupt companies such that we could acquire them for nothing. The problem is, you can get as good a deal with these companies as you like.
The British public would still have to foot the 100 billion plus investment upgrades over the next five years or so. Option two we pay full whack, and I think we all know that our CV is not a fair market valuation. But when you factor in that debt, which really does need to be paid down or taken on, you really are up towards the better part of £100 billion. And even then you have the investment on top of that.
Option three, we wait for the water companies to go bankrupt and then acquire them for next to nothing off what sees ten of those companies with high financial risk. But the government would still have to foot the infrastructure bill on a company by company basis. Cheaper but slower. Option four we start with what the British public actually wants to see from its water system, and have a democratic conversation about what they're willing to invest to solve the problem.
We then work out the impact that has on the value of the industry. But the reality is, I think we've already had that conversation. We know what the British public wants because they've been shouting it from the rooftops, often in wetsuits with surfboards in hand. And I commend the work of the Good Growth Foundation, which I believe has gotten to grips with some of these challenges and opportunities presented by the Special Administration Scheme to take back control of the water industry for the public good and enable us to take those profits and reinvest them back into fixing our water system.
18:04
18:04
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Under your chairmanship, and like some other members, I'm not keen on a referendum because I think I know the anger of my constituents across even Craven. I think it's incumbent on us just to get on and have the conversation and come up with a solution. Now, across my constituency currently, we see a wave of roadworks because of years of lack of investment and an asset stripping of Thames Water. And now we've realised those Victorian pipes finally need to be replaced.
That weren't replaced as the company, as I say, was asset stripped. But that causes huge disruption to my residents. And of course we've placed the cost of that onto my constituents across from Crayford, who have seen increases of 30 to 40% in their bills over the last two years. And they really say to me that nothing there's no better example of having no control, and that people in this place are powerless than this example of Thames Water, because I just shrug my shoulders.
I bring the matter here continually and and do not be able to resolve this issue. Now in Crayford town centre for the last five summers now, we've had major leaks. The town centre has been closed five successive summers, and I will give you an example of the incompetency of Thames Water. Last year I wrote to them and said, could they show me the map of all the leaks and flooding in Crayford town centre? And they sent that to me, which showed exactly the scale of the problem.
Yet this summer, when a constituent raised their concerns about the ongoing problems and I wrote to them, they wrote back to me and said they've got no records of any flooding in Crayford town centre over the last five summers. So it just shows you you are dealing with a company who is very difficult to meet. Now I'm actually meeting them tomorrow, but it's very difficult to meet, very difficult to have any control over, and there is no wonder that my constituents think it's incumbent on us to resolve.
Now, of course, in principle, I want the company to be nationalised, but I just want a system and to be able to hear from the minister later, just a system that gives my constituents and me some accountability over bills and some accountability over resolving the issues which cripple my town centres and continue calls, leaks, delays and roadworks. Thank you sir.
That weren't replaced as the company, as I say, was asset stripped. But that causes huge disruption to my residents. And of course we've placed the cost of that onto my constituents across from Crayford, who have seen increases of 30 to 40% in their bills over the last two years. And they really say to me that nothing there's no better example of having no control, and that people in this place are powerless than this example of Thames Water, because I just shrug my shoulders.
I bring the matter here continually and and do not be able to resolve this issue. Now in Crayford town centre for the last five summers now, we've had major leaks. The town centre has been closed five successive summers, and I will give you an example of the incompetency of Thames Water. Last year I wrote to them and said, could they show me the map of all the leaks and flooding in Crayford town centre? And they sent that to me, which showed exactly the scale of the problem.
Yet this summer, when a constituent raised their concerns about the ongoing problems and I wrote to them, they wrote back to me and said they've got no records of any flooding in Crayford town centre over the last five summers. So it just shows you you are dealing with a company who is very difficult to meet. Now I'm actually meeting them tomorrow, but it's very difficult to meet, very difficult to have any control over, and there is no wonder that my constituents think it's incumbent on us to resolve.
Now, of course, in principle, I want the company to be nationalised, but I just want a system and to be able to hear from the minister later, just a system that gives my constituents and me some accountability over bills and some accountability over resolving the issues which cripple my town centres and continue calls, leaks, delays and roadworks. Thank you sir.
18:07
18:07
Speaker 37
-
Speaker 37
Thank you chair. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. 37 years after privatisation, those companies are laden with debt. Our rivers and coastlines are polluted and shareholders are extracted . Returns while investment lagged. This proof can be seen in North Somerset. One young man, whilst training for an Ironman in 2023 swam in Clevedon Marine Lake, which was unfortunately polluted at the time. Within a day he had collapsed.
It took four months of tests to confirm what had happened. A virus caught in that water had lowered his blood pressure and triggered a minor heart episode. That is what acceptable water quality is costing real people in my constituency. I'd be happy to thank you very much for doing so. My constituency, Rushcliffe.
It took four months of tests to confirm what had happened. A virus caught in that water had lowered his blood pressure and triggered a minor heart episode. That is what acceptable water quality is costing real people in my constituency. I'd be happy to thank you very much for doing so. My constituency, Rushcliffe.
18:07
Speaker 38
-
Speaker 38
Is home to Home Pierpont, which is the home of the National Water Sports Centre, and I just want to reiterate that point that he makes there, because I've been contacted by users of the National Water Sports Centre, which is meant to be a national standard venue, but because of pollution and sewage spills on the River Trent, there is cases of nausea, fever and vomiting. So would he agree with me that we need to do more to think about the public ownership of water companies, so that we can deal with the environmental health impacts on users?
18:08
Speaker 37
-
Speaker 37
I agree with my honourable friend and in my constituency, the new river that once ran clear and was a genuine source of local pride is no longer the beautiful river. Residents grew up with agricultural and urban runoff, as well as underfunding and a lack of investment, have left it choked with invasive plant species and thick algae. Finally, in 2025, a storm overflow at Portbury Wharf, a nature reserve, discharged sewage into the Severn estuary for a total of 721 hours, the equivalent of 30 full days of waste pumped from North Somerset Shores.
That is why I strongly welcome the swift introduction of the Water Special Measures Act. But it treats the symptom, not the disease. I believe we are past the point of regulating out a structural failure. If a company's incentive is shareholder return rather than public service, no amount of fines will help. Water is an essential utility. However, as we saw this summer, the failure of these companies are already compounding the impact of climate change and drought.
We had one of the wettest springs on record, yet these same companies have failed to invest in reservoirs like Barrow, Gurney in my constituency that are needed to capture one of the most valuable resources reservoirs that should be central to how we store and manage water in the South west have suffered from years of underinvestment neglected by companies more focused on returns than resilience. Nobody chooses their water company. Nobody can switch. But our constituents are paying the price through their health, their pride in local areas as well as their bills.
The public deserve the chance to say whether that should continue.
That is why I strongly welcome the swift introduction of the Water Special Measures Act. But it treats the symptom, not the disease. I believe we are past the point of regulating out a structural failure. If a company's incentive is shareholder return rather than public service, no amount of fines will help. Water is an essential utility. However, as we saw this summer, the failure of these companies are already compounding the impact of climate change and drought.
We had one of the wettest springs on record, yet these same companies have failed to invest in reservoirs like Barrow, Gurney in my constituency that are needed to capture one of the most valuable resources reservoirs that should be central to how we store and manage water in the South west have suffered from years of underinvestment neglected by companies more focused on returns than resilience. Nobody chooses their water company. Nobody can switch. But our constituents are paying the price through their health, their pride in local areas as well as their bills.
The public deserve the chance to say whether that should continue.
18:10
18:10
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
Sir Jeremy, it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And also thank you to the member for Cotton Valley for introducing this debate. Now, my constituents are fed up of mismanagement and debt, and they're fed up of the simultaneous price hikes and shareholder bonuses. They also fed up of the hosepipe bans while water runs down our streets. Since April 2025, our bills have risen by 31%, and this year an additional 3.4%.
And for that, what do we get? Sewage dumps, burst pipes and drinking water that I advise all members, if they don't know not to drink without boiling or filtering first. Thames Water is one of the worst polluters in England, and last year I got one star from the Environment Agency, and I think that's only because they haven't figured out how to color in half the star or a quarter of it, because Sir Jeremy. Unfortunately, Thames Water isn't just crap.
It's also full of crap. 9189 sewage spills last year alone, and nearly 592,000,000l of water lost to leaks every single day. And then they have the cheek to call a hosepipe ban. Now you cannot see Thames Water from my constituency, but anyone who wants a riverside experience can just walk down Brixton Hill because water is usually gushing from some leak causing havoc, gridlock, traffic on the main road or on some of the residential roads. A reality TV version of The Hunger Games, where you see residents scrambling for bottles of water that have been left there during an outage and, you know, keeping them under private ownership just delays the inevitable government bailout, which is essentially us paying twice now.
I'm someone who believes the great privatisation experiment has failed in nearly every public service industry. It has been tried. Some may call me ideological for this, but I point them to Thames Water every single time to serve as case and point. Now we don't need a crystal ball or even a referendum to tell us that there would be overwhelming support for public ownership. So I asked the minister, why has it not happened yet? And, you know, why is it not been put under special measures, Thames Water in particular, and why will it not simply be brought under public ownership?
And for that, what do we get? Sewage dumps, burst pipes and drinking water that I advise all members, if they don't know not to drink without boiling or filtering first. Thames Water is one of the worst polluters in England, and last year I got one star from the Environment Agency, and I think that's only because they haven't figured out how to color in half the star or a quarter of it, because Sir Jeremy. Unfortunately, Thames Water isn't just crap.
It's also full of crap. 9189 sewage spills last year alone, and nearly 592,000,000l of water lost to leaks every single day. And then they have the cheek to call a hosepipe ban. Now you cannot see Thames Water from my constituency, but anyone who wants a riverside experience can just walk down Brixton Hill because water is usually gushing from some leak causing havoc, gridlock, traffic on the main road or on some of the residential roads. A reality TV version of The Hunger Games, where you see residents scrambling for bottles of water that have been left there during an outage and, you know, keeping them under private ownership just delays the inevitable government bailout, which is essentially us paying twice now.
I'm someone who believes the great privatisation experiment has failed in nearly every public service industry. It has been tried. Some may call me ideological for this, but I point them to Thames Water every single time to serve as case and point. Now we don't need a crystal ball or even a referendum to tell us that there would be overwhelming support for public ownership. So I asked the minister, why has it not happened yet? And, you know, why is it not been put under special measures, Thames Water in particular, and why will it not simply be brought under public ownership?
18:12
Speaker 36
-
Speaker 36
Thank you. Bambos Charalambous to serve under your chairmanship. The current model of our water service is not working for our customers and has not been working for quite some time. My constituents have watched their bills rise again and again while Thames Water fails, falls further into debt and water bosses are rewarded with huge bonuses. Despite failing to invest in critical infrastructure and allowing more sewage pollution in our rivers, lakes and streams.
These failures in investment, infrastructure and environmental performance have undermined public confidence and customers have been unable to take their business elsewhere. As the water companies operate through regional monopolies. I commend the government for trying to tackle some of these issues, but tougher regulation is not enough to deal with a model that is fundamentally broken. Thames Water is in approximately £19 billion of debt, but the rescue deal on the table is a market led recapitalisation by its creditors that will keep this failing private ownership model intact in exchange for environmental leniency.
Water is an essential service and a natural monopoly, so it is reasonable to ask whether, in the interests of taxpayers are best served when the ownership of our water is determined by private investors. Indeed, bringing Thames Water into public ownership, either permanently or initially through a special administration regime, would allow the government to write down debt on fairer terms than any creditor led deal and to direct further revenue toward infrastructure and customers, rather than debt servicing, and returns to shareholders.
We must restore public confidence and end the era of profiting from pollution and prioritising shareholder returns over taxpayers. Our water services are too essential to be treated simply as another commercial asset. The water privatisation of the 1980s has been a failed ideological experiment, which has seen profits plundered into the pockets of hedge funds and offshore investors. Whilst the sector has been starved of investment, not a single reservoir has been built since 1992, and the underinvestment in our antiquated pipes and overflowing sewage system.
These failures in investment, infrastructure and environmental performance have undermined public confidence and customers have been unable to take their business elsewhere. As the water companies operate through regional monopolies. I commend the government for trying to tackle some of these issues, but tougher regulation is not enough to deal with a model that is fundamentally broken. Thames Water is in approximately £19 billion of debt, but the rescue deal on the table is a market led recapitalisation by its creditors that will keep this failing private ownership model intact in exchange for environmental leniency.
Water is an essential service and a natural monopoly, so it is reasonable to ask whether, in the interests of taxpayers are best served when the ownership of our water is determined by private investors. Indeed, bringing Thames Water into public ownership, either permanently or initially through a special administration regime, would allow the government to write down debt on fairer terms than any creditor led deal and to direct further revenue toward infrastructure and customers, rather than debt servicing, and returns to shareholders.
We must restore public confidence and end the era of profiting from pollution and prioritising shareholder returns over taxpayers. Our water services are too essential to be treated simply as another commercial asset. The water privatisation of the 1980s has been a failed ideological experiment, which has seen profits plundered into the pockets of hedge funds and offshore investors. Whilst the sector has been starved of investment, not a single reservoir has been built since 1992, and the underinvestment in our antiquated pipes and overflowing sewage system.
18:14
18:14
Speaker 36
-
Speaker 36
I 100% support my honourable friend. We need this urgent infrastructure because we have seen the impact of drought and the need for hosepipe ban as a result of not having this infrastructure in place. As I was saying, not a single reservoir has been built since 1992, and the underinvestment in our antiquated pipes and overflowing sewage system are plain to see. This is not good enough, and that is why public ownership is the only way forward, and why I urge the government to undertake putting Thames Water back into public ownership as soon as possible.
18:15
18:15
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
And I'd like to thank the honourable member for Colne Valley for bringing this debate, and very much the gentleman who brought the petition in the first place. My constituents are, I am sure, absolutely staggered, as am I, that we're having a conversation about children getting ill from paddling in our streams and actually from drinking our drinking water. The Victorians built a load of sewers because they recognised that this was completely and utterly unacceptable. And it's 2026 and we don't seem to have managed to maintain them to a point where we can actually drink our water.
That's crackers. Just the idea that we even have to have a conversation about whether or not our water is fit to drink, should be raising alarm bells all the time. In the meantime, though, in the last 20 odd years since privatisation, £85 billion have been paid out as dividends. And I genuinely astonished by the fact that so much money has been taken from the good people of this country and given to private interests without a greater degree of outcry about this, I wanted to declare an interest here as the chair of the Appg for gardens and horticulture, because I think it's really important to note that this doesn't just have implications for individuals, although they are horrific and I do not wish to understate them.
This also has implications for horticulture businesses. Our general access to water is appalling and that, as I say, is decimating businesses who are paying very high utility costs across the board without being able to regularly access what they need. So it's damaging our economy. It is damaging our our individual experience of the great outdoors. It's ridiculous the amount that we're paying in bills. And in the meantime, 20% of treated water in the UK, drinking water is lost to leakage.
I know that the government has taken some steps already to improve regulation around the water industry, but frankly, we just need to go further and faster. I'm so proud to represent a very beautiful area of the world where many of my constituents have grown up playing in local rivers and streams, and where people still know their pets go into the water, but where most parents now actually won't let their kids paddle in places that they used to because they know it's not safe.
How have we got here? It's just completely unacceptable. I know there are arguments about how much it would cost, and of course we have to consider that. But if actually the law is preventing us from renationalising things, that clearly should be. I speak as a lawyer. Perhaps we should revisit the law. I think this is clear from our constituents that we need to move forward.
That's crackers. Just the idea that we even have to have a conversation about whether or not our water is fit to drink, should be raising alarm bells all the time. In the meantime, though, in the last 20 odd years since privatisation, £85 billion have been paid out as dividends. And I genuinely astonished by the fact that so much money has been taken from the good people of this country and given to private interests without a greater degree of outcry about this, I wanted to declare an interest here as the chair of the Appg for gardens and horticulture, because I think it's really important to note that this doesn't just have implications for individuals, although they are horrific and I do not wish to understate them.
This also has implications for horticulture businesses. Our general access to water is appalling and that, as I say, is decimating businesses who are paying very high utility costs across the board without being able to regularly access what they need. So it's damaging our economy. It is damaging our our individual experience of the great outdoors. It's ridiculous the amount that we're paying in bills. And in the meantime, 20% of treated water in the UK, drinking water is lost to leakage.
I know that the government has taken some steps already to improve regulation around the water industry, but frankly, we just need to go further and faster. I'm so proud to represent a very beautiful area of the world where many of my constituents have grown up playing in local rivers and streams, and where people still know their pets go into the water, but where most parents now actually won't let their kids paddle in places that they used to because they know it's not safe.
How have we got here? It's just completely unacceptable. I know there are arguments about how much it would cost, and of course we have to consider that. But if actually the law is preventing us from renationalising things, that clearly should be. I speak as a lawyer. Perhaps we should revisit the law. I think this is clear from our constituents that we need to move forward.
18:17
18:17
18:17
18:18
Speaker 40
-
Speaker 40
The river flows through my constituency of Mid and South Pembrokeshire, and it tells a proud history of Pembrokeshire. But more recently it's told a sadder story of the failures of our water sector at Picton Pumping Station in Harford West local Campaign, the local campaigning organisation. The project found that equivalent of 17 tankers of sewage per day were being dumped into the sea between July 2022 and February 2024. Between January and October 2025, there were nearly 4000 hours of untreated sewage pollution at seven different sites in and around the Cleddau project.
Now, I caution that members advocating for a not for profit model of of water ownership in the case that exemplified here of the history of Welsh Water and as a member of the environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee, I've spent many hours questioning water bosses. And it's it's clear to me that regulatory enforcement alone won't address the crisis that the sector is facing. These problems are symptoms of a structure and a culture within these companies.
Too much focus on the financialization rather than focus and prioritisation of environmental stewardship and customers. While executives have too often been insulated from the consequences of their poor performance, as has been eloquently described by members today, the water sector is fundamental to public health, environmental protection and, crucially, our national security. And I congratulate the member for Colne Valley for securing today's debate and for giving such an eloquent and passionate speech on this issue. It's vital that we seriously consider different forms of ownership, and it's been a somewhat sadness that that to me, that that conversation has been so stifled in recent years.
You know, nationalisation must form part of that conversation and it must flow as a consequence of continued failure of water companies. So I ask the minister, does she agree that if water companies cannot deliver for customers, the state must be prepared to step in and ensure that an essential service is run in the public interest?
Now, I caution that members advocating for a not for profit model of of water ownership in the case that exemplified here of the history of Welsh Water and as a member of the environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee, I've spent many hours questioning water bosses. And it's it's clear to me that regulatory enforcement alone won't address the crisis that the sector is facing. These problems are symptoms of a structure and a culture within these companies.
Too much focus on the financialization rather than focus and prioritisation of environmental stewardship and customers. While executives have too often been insulated from the consequences of their poor performance, as has been eloquently described by members today, the water sector is fundamental to public health, environmental protection and, crucially, our national security. And I congratulate the member for Colne Valley for securing today's debate and for giving such an eloquent and passionate speech on this issue. It's vital that we seriously consider different forms of ownership, and it's been a somewhat sadness that that to me, that that conversation has been so stifled in recent years.
You know, nationalisation must form part of that conversation and it must flow as a consequence of continued failure of water companies. So I ask the minister, does she agree that if water companies cannot deliver for customers, the state must be prepared to step in and ensure that an essential service is run in the public interest?
18:20
18:20
18:20
Speaker 39
-
Speaker 39
Jeremy, it's a real pleasure to serve. under your chairmanship. I want to start off by thanking all the petitioners, some 200 000 and more people across the country have signed this petition, and I want to thank the hundreds of constituents in East Leeds who have signed this petition as well, in relation to the arguments about public ownership. I think we need to start off with staring the facts in the face that England and Wales are the only countries in the world to fully privatise their water and sewage systems.
So we're the odd ones out here and something needs to be done about it. The privatisation of our water system has been a catastrophic failure. Not for shareholders, not for the chief executive of Water Yorkshire, but for the public, for the environment. And as we've heard, even for children, and with climate change leading to further droughts and further water shortages, the iniquitous role that the private water companies, leaderships and the system they represent is facing will only get worse.
We hear a lot about Thames Water. I think we also need to talk about Yorkshire Water. Bills under Yorkshire Water are up by over a third in two years. Every year. Yorkshire Water dumps thousands of hundreds of thousands of hours of sewage into our rivers and seas. Yorkshire Water is performing so badly it's been downgraded to a one star rating by the Environment Agency. It was recently hit by an £89 million performance penalty for underdelivering.
And yet. And yet Yorkshire Water's chief executive's total salary is running at over £1 million a year. So privatisation has worked. For some. That's rewarding failure as long as the profits keep flowing. Enough of all of this, full public ownership is what's needed. Let's get into step with the rest of the world, focusing on cleaner water, focusing on lower bills, focusing on a system that actually works and is fit for the climate challenges of the future.
People out there in the country know this is a disgrace, and they know it needs sorting out now public ownership of our water system now John Woodcock.
So we're the odd ones out here and something needs to be done about it. The privatisation of our water system has been a catastrophic failure. Not for shareholders, not for the chief executive of Water Yorkshire, but for the public, for the environment. And as we've heard, even for children, and with climate change leading to further droughts and further water shortages, the iniquitous role that the private water companies, leaderships and the system they represent is facing will only get worse.
We hear a lot about Thames Water. I think we also need to talk about Yorkshire Water. Bills under Yorkshire Water are up by over a third in two years. Every year. Yorkshire Water dumps thousands of hundreds of thousands of hours of sewage into our rivers and seas. Yorkshire Water is performing so badly it's been downgraded to a one star rating by the Environment Agency. It was recently hit by an £89 million performance penalty for underdelivering.
And yet. And yet Yorkshire Water's chief executive's total salary is running at over £1 million a year. So privatisation has worked. For some. That's rewarding failure as long as the profits keep flowing. Enough of all of this, full public ownership is what's needed. Let's get into step with the rest of the world, focusing on cleaner water, focusing on lower bills, focusing on a system that actually works and is fit for the climate challenges of the future.
People out there in the country know this is a disgrace, and they know it needs sorting out now public ownership of our water system now John Woodcock.
18:22
Speaker 41
-
Speaker 41
Thames Water. We had thousands of sewage spills leading to hundreds of thousands of hours of sewage being discharged into local rivers and streams, which is probably why so many of my constituents signed this petition. I had prepared a long speech for this debate as a result, but given the number of speakers and the time available, I will keep my remarks much more brief. In March, I wrote for Labourlist that the water scandal had become a test of whether a government elected on a promise of change was prepared to confront vested interests across England and Wales.
Water bills rose by 26% last year for Thames Water customers, including my constituents, it was 31% and this year the bills have risen again. Now, during the Makerfield campaign, the Prime Minister said that Britain's water industry had become a system where, to quote the shareholders, always win and the bill payers always lose. He was right. And on Thames Water specifically, the Prime Minister argued that while public that public ownership was ultimately something that should happen.
Now, while I welcome the steps that this government has taken with regards to the water industry, the fact that there are so many people who have signed this petition, and one glance at my mailbox, and probably the same for every other member of Parliament in this place, would suggest that most people actually feel, despite these measures and what they intend to do, none of them quite go far enough. So my simple question to the minister would be, what more is the government prepared to do in order to demonstrate that it understands the scale of public anger, that it hears the public's frustration, and that it is prepared to act with greater urgency in response to it? Thank
Water bills rose by 26% last year for Thames Water customers, including my constituents, it was 31% and this year the bills have risen again. Now, during the Makerfield campaign, the Prime Minister said that Britain's water industry had become a system where, to quote the shareholders, always win and the bill payers always lose. He was right. And on Thames Water specifically, the Prime Minister argued that while public that public ownership was ultimately something that should happen.
Now, while I welcome the steps that this government has taken with regards to the water industry, the fact that there are so many people who have signed this petition, and one glance at my mailbox, and probably the same for every other member of Parliament in this place, would suggest that most people actually feel, despite these measures and what they intend to do, none of them quite go far enough. So my simple question to the minister would be, what more is the government prepared to do in order to demonstrate that it understands the scale of public anger, that it hears the public's frustration, and that it is prepared to act with greater urgency in response to it? Thank
18:24
18:24
18:24
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Since I was elected, I have heard repeatedly from constituents about flooding, sewage discharges and failures of basic water infrastructure. My constituency is served by both Severn Trent and South Staffs. Water double the problems that some would say. I recently met South Staffs water after concerns over the installation of meters without what many, without what many customers felt was adequate notice. But the crux of that is that customers feeling that they have zero influence over the decisions affecting them, and that companies don't seem to clearly explain why decisions are ever taken.
I've heard from constituents in Chadsmoor, for example, who for 11 months have had to put up with water leaking out at incredible rates all around their properties and dangerously high water pressure following meters being installed. But whatever the ultimate cause, water companies refusing to take responsibility for finding fixes is just another example of why their customers have lost trust on the environment, food and Rural Affairs Committee. As my my colleague said, we've grilled the chief executives of nine water companies.
We looked at many issues, but I think, crucially, the corporate culture that has taken hold in the sector, so divorced from the lives of customers, is really to blame for a lot of what we're discussing. Despite already knowing that public confidence was in tatters and that the sector was up Sewage Creek without a paddle, we were shocked by what we heard. For me, governance is just as important as ownership, particularly questions like who has control, who carries risk, how investments are financed and what voice customers have.
The government has recognised that the broken status quo cannot continue, powers have been strengthened and off what is to be replaced with a new unified regulator. But we should ask, as so many have done today, whether that is enough in the face of the mammoth issues in this sector, we can't assume that public ownership would resolve all of those issues. Let's remember that some pre-privatisation water boards were failing their customers too. That's why, as a member of the Co-operative Party, I hope that the minister will look further at empowering customers, mutual structures and co-operative principles.
Our constituents are quite rightly demanding greater control over something so fundamental to their lives. Water is different from almost any other service because we cannot take our money elsewhere. So the test of the government's reforms should be simple. When people turn on their tap, look at their bill, or walk by their local river, do they feel the system is working in their interests? If the answer is no, then we should have the courage to change it.
I've heard from constituents in Chadsmoor, for example, who for 11 months have had to put up with water leaking out at incredible rates all around their properties and dangerously high water pressure following meters being installed. But whatever the ultimate cause, water companies refusing to take responsibility for finding fixes is just another example of why their customers have lost trust on the environment, food and Rural Affairs Committee. As my my colleague said, we've grilled the chief executives of nine water companies.
We looked at many issues, but I think, crucially, the corporate culture that has taken hold in the sector, so divorced from the lives of customers, is really to blame for a lot of what we're discussing. Despite already knowing that public confidence was in tatters and that the sector was up Sewage Creek without a paddle, we were shocked by what we heard. For me, governance is just as important as ownership, particularly questions like who has control, who carries risk, how investments are financed and what voice customers have.
The government has recognised that the broken status quo cannot continue, powers have been strengthened and off what is to be replaced with a new unified regulator. But we should ask, as so many have done today, whether that is enough in the face of the mammoth issues in this sector, we can't assume that public ownership would resolve all of those issues. Let's remember that some pre-privatisation water boards were failing their customers too. That's why, as a member of the Co-operative Party, I hope that the minister will look further at empowering customers, mutual structures and co-operative principles.
Our constituents are quite rightly demanding greater control over something so fundamental to their lives. Water is different from almost any other service because we cannot take our money elsewhere. So the test of the government's reforms should be simple. When people turn on their tap, look at their bill, or walk by their local river, do they feel the system is working in their interests? If the answer is no, then we should have the courage to change it.
18:27
18:27
Speaker 42
-
Speaker 42
Sara Hall oh, sorry. Sara Hall apologies, I got the wrong name. Sara Hall thank you, thank you, thank you, sir Jeremy. It's a pleasure to serve under your chair. I support public ownership of our water industry. Water is an essential public service and it should be run in the public interest. People in Warrington South in my constituency, cannot suddenly decide that they've had enough of United Utilities and switch to another water company.
They pay their bills because they need the service and they should be able to expect it to work for them. But in reality, across the country, that's not what is happening. After years of neglect, failure to upgrade infrastructure, sewage dumping in our waterways, skyrocketing bills, people, quite frankly, have had enough. We've spent decades trying to regulate these monopolies, so they behave somewhat like a public service. But it's clear that that simply has not worked. Across the wider water system.
Responsibility is divided between organisations, departments, agencies and authorities, leaving people struggling to find out who will put a problem right. On New Year's Day last year, families in Warrington had water coming into their homes. And when water is coming through your front door, you don't want an organizational chart. You just want to know what happened and what someone's going to do about it. The system that we have is that's been bolted together over the years does not reflect how closely all of these things connect.
And that's where I think we need to change the way that we think. I want to see a publicly owned water company that works holistically across the whole system. We want to be able to give doing so, giving a long term public program that would give businesses certainty about the work that's coming in a steady programme of work that gives British firms confidence to invest and take on apprenticeships and develop skills and technology. I don't know if the bottle of ownership changes.
We must use it to change the way the whole water system works, a way to work a system that is transparent, that it puts profits back into crumbling the crumbling system and ends the dumping of sewage in our waterways. The Prime Minister has spoken about stronger public control of essential services and I welcome that. But in water, public control has to mean more than regulating private companies more closely. We've been doing that since privatisation.
Regulation alone cannot decide what the company is ultimately there to do or whose interests should come first. Water is something every one of us depends on, and I believe it should belong to the public and be run for the public good.
They pay their bills because they need the service and they should be able to expect it to work for them. But in reality, across the country, that's not what is happening. After years of neglect, failure to upgrade infrastructure, sewage dumping in our waterways, skyrocketing bills, people, quite frankly, have had enough. We've spent decades trying to regulate these monopolies, so they behave somewhat like a public service. But it's clear that that simply has not worked. Across the wider water system.
Responsibility is divided between organisations, departments, agencies and authorities, leaving people struggling to find out who will put a problem right. On New Year's Day last year, families in Warrington had water coming into their homes. And when water is coming through your front door, you don't want an organizational chart. You just want to know what happened and what someone's going to do about it. The system that we have is that's been bolted together over the years does not reflect how closely all of these things connect.
And that's where I think we need to change the way that we think. I want to see a publicly owned water company that works holistically across the whole system. We want to be able to give doing so, giving a long term public program that would give businesses certainty about the work that's coming in a steady programme of work that gives British firms confidence to invest and take on apprenticeships and develop skills and technology. I don't know if the bottle of ownership changes.
We must use it to change the way the whole water system works, a way to work a system that is transparent, that it puts profits back into crumbling the crumbling system and ends the dumping of sewage in our waterways. The Prime Minister has spoken about stronger public control of essential services and I welcome that. But in water, public control has to mean more than regulating private companies more closely. We've been doing that since privatisation.
Regulation alone cannot decide what the company is ultimately there to do or whose interests should come first. Water is something every one of us depends on, and I believe it should belong to the public and be run for the public good.
18:29
18:29
Speaker 45
-
Speaker 45
As long as far as I'm aware. Yes. Thank you so much to Jeremy. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And I want to thank the hundreds of Southampton Itchen constituents who have signed this petition. They've signed it because they know this model is an abject failure. Trust is completely gone, and they are fed up of being ripped off. My constituents bills doubled last year alone.
Southern water's racked up £7 million worth of fines. Just this year they won a record not one they wanted, but a record of a £90 million fine. Five years ago, after sewage poured into the River test, one of Hampshire's chalk streams. The other chalk stream is the Itchen, from which my constituency takes its name, where we have rare Atlantic salmon that come to spawn there. E coli is rife for people trying to swim in there, and the stench of sewage is so vile that schools nearby the river and the treatment works often.
Don't let the kids out onto the playground. So the public agree that the model has failed. But it's not just Labour voters. Those of us with a history of perhaps being pro nationalisation, but people across the political spectrum, some 68% back nationalising water. And that support keeps growing. More than three quarters of conservative voters want water back in public hands, though possibly not as many conservative MPs.
This is as close to a national consensus as I think we get, so I understand why so many have signed this petition. The part that I depart company from them on, and this has been reflected by a number of members, is that while I agree with the destination, I am traumatized by the route of previous referenda. And so I think actually people are making their voices heard. They are telling us what they want. We are a government with a majority, and I think we need to take instead of a referendum, we need a plan of the kind that this government has already shown it can produce.
We did it for rail. It's a phase legally underpinned route back to public ownership, transferring operators as contracts expired under a single new body and no compensation to the taxpayer. I welcome the Prime Minister's vision for greater public control of essential services. But reforming a broken model is not the same as ending it, and the public see that. So I ask the minister, please, let's just crack on with it and get it back into public hands.
Southern water's racked up £7 million worth of fines. Just this year they won a record not one they wanted, but a record of a £90 million fine. Five years ago, after sewage poured into the River test, one of Hampshire's chalk streams. The other chalk stream is the Itchen, from which my constituency takes its name, where we have rare Atlantic salmon that come to spawn there. E coli is rife for people trying to swim in there, and the stench of sewage is so vile that schools nearby the river and the treatment works often.
Don't let the kids out onto the playground. So the public agree that the model has failed. But it's not just Labour voters. Those of us with a history of perhaps being pro nationalisation, but people across the political spectrum, some 68% back nationalising water. And that support keeps growing. More than three quarters of conservative voters want water back in public hands, though possibly not as many conservative MPs.
This is as close to a national consensus as I think we get, so I understand why so many have signed this petition. The part that I depart company from them on, and this has been reflected by a number of members, is that while I agree with the destination, I am traumatized by the route of previous referenda. And so I think actually people are making their voices heard. They are telling us what they want. We are a government with a majority, and I think we need to take instead of a referendum, we need a plan of the kind that this government has already shown it can produce.
We did it for rail. It's a phase legally underpinned route back to public ownership, transferring operators as contracts expired under a single new body and no compensation to the taxpayer. I welcome the Prime Minister's vision for greater public control of essential services. But reforming a broken model is not the same as ending it, and the public see that. So I ask the minister, please, let's just crack on with it and get it back into public hands.
18:32
18:32
18:32
Speaker 47
-
Speaker 47
Jeremy, it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And can I also pay tribute to all of the campaigners and citizen scientists, some of whom are with us in the gallery today, who have exposed the scale of the sewage scandal for what it is, and it's only because of them and their campaigning that we are all here today. Our water industry is fundamentally broken, like my hon. Friend the member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire.
I too have sat there and questioned the water bosses with him, and it's clear that excuses after excuses are all we have heard at the select committee and we fundamentally need a change to protect our failing water infrastructure. This is, I know, a top priority for our Labour government, and I welcome the steps that have been made so far to ramp up regulation and really get tough on the water companies. But I also believe that we need to go further, which I will outline in a moment.
I know that nothing enrages the people I represent more in Hastings and Rye than bills that go up every year to prop up failing companies, while executives and shareholders try to find ways to evade bonus bans as companies edge towards bankruptcy. We've already taken important steps, but we must now go further to protect this vital national infrastructure. In Hastings and Rye, we are already seeing the impacts of some of the regulation that we've introduced.
More staff from the Environment Agency focused full time on monitoring Southern Water, more inspections taking place, more enforcement notices being issued. And we're starting to see the results of this. But I think there's still more to do. Those of us in this room who are favoring a cooperative model believe that this is the solution to fixing our broken water industry. That puts people before profit. And I just want to talk briefly about the impact of our failing water industry on the people.
I represent two major water outages in the past couple of years one nine days, one five days. Major flooding in Hastings town centre that ruined people's livelihoods, 300 million plastic beads washing up on our coastline that we only found out came from a southern water treatment plant, because we got down on our hands and knees and we exposed that scandal. Public health compromised sewage dumped in our sea regularly. Right now there is a digger on the
I too have sat there and questioned the water bosses with him, and it's clear that excuses after excuses are all we have heard at the select committee and we fundamentally need a change to protect our failing water infrastructure. This is, I know, a top priority for our Labour government, and I welcome the steps that have been made so far to ramp up regulation and really get tough on the water companies. But I also believe that we need to go further, which I will outline in a moment.
I know that nothing enrages the people I represent more in Hastings and Rye than bills that go up every year to prop up failing companies, while executives and shareholders try to find ways to evade bonus bans as companies edge towards bankruptcy. We've already taken important steps, but we must now go further to protect this vital national infrastructure. In Hastings and Rye, we are already seeing the impacts of some of the regulation that we've introduced.
More staff from the Environment Agency focused full time on monitoring Southern Water, more inspections taking place, more enforcement notices being issued. And we're starting to see the results of this. But I think there's still more to do. Those of us in this room who are favoring a cooperative model believe that this is the solution to fixing our broken water industry. That puts people before profit. And I just want to talk briefly about the impact of our failing water industry on the people.
I represent two major water outages in the past couple of years one nine days, one five days. Major flooding in Hastings town centre that ruined people's livelihoods, 300 million plastic beads washing up on our coastline that we only found out came from a southern water treatment plant, because we got down on our hands and knees and we exposed that scandal. Public health compromised sewage dumped in our sea regularly. Right now there is a digger on the
18:34
18:34
18:34
18:34
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
It's a pleasure to serve with you in the chair this afternoon. And I want to speak this afternoon about the river store, one of the globally significant chalk streams that runs right through my constituency. It's a place where families walk, where anglers spend their weekends, where countless residents connect with nature, delivers enormous social, recreational, and environmental benefits for our community. But at the start of the month, raw sewage was again discharged into the Stort navigation in a spill that lasted over eight hours, leaving dead fish and visible pollution in its wake.
Now, I've been requesting a meeting with Thames Water to discuss protecting the store since the start of the year, following hundreds of hours of sewage discharges. They've repeatedly failed to engage with that process, only agreeing to meet with me this week after I told them that I'd effectively turn up at one of their sewage treatment sites to demand an explanation. Now that's not good enough. And we know that whatever they say when I meet them later this week, the truth is that the privatised water industry is failing in its duty of care to our environment, and that privatisation has been a failure.
There's simply no other way to put it. We were told that private ownership would drive investment efficiency and outcomes. Too often we've seen the opposite. And as others have said, water is not a luxury. It's an essential public service. And so we need a system that puts the public interest before shareholder returns, investment before extraction and environmental protection, before corporate profit. And to my mind, the only credible path forward is to call time on a failed system and move to a model of public ownership of our water industry.
And we should start by bringing Thames Water into special administration. Now, the pollution of our rivers and waterways cannot continue for the sake of the River Stort. For communities across the country and for future generations, we must take this opportunity to choose a different path. Now, I'm very grateful to the Minister for taking the time to meet with me earlier this year regarding Thames Water and the River Stort. And as I said in my remarks, I'll be meeting Thames Water later this week.
I'd be very grateful if she could set out in her response what message she would deliver to Thames Water. Was she in my position and whether she should consider meeting with me again to discuss these repeated failures?
Now, I've been requesting a meeting with Thames Water to discuss protecting the store since the start of the year, following hundreds of hours of sewage discharges. They've repeatedly failed to engage with that process, only agreeing to meet with me this week after I told them that I'd effectively turn up at one of their sewage treatment sites to demand an explanation. Now that's not good enough. And we know that whatever they say when I meet them later this week, the truth is that the privatised water industry is failing in its duty of care to our environment, and that privatisation has been a failure.
There's simply no other way to put it. We were told that private ownership would drive investment efficiency and outcomes. Too often we've seen the opposite. And as others have said, water is not a luxury. It's an essential public service. And so we need a system that puts the public interest before shareholder returns, investment before extraction and environmental protection, before corporate profit. And to my mind, the only credible path forward is to call time on a failed system and move to a model of public ownership of our water industry.
And we should start by bringing Thames Water into special administration. Now, the pollution of our rivers and waterways cannot continue for the sake of the River Stort. For communities across the country and for future generations, we must take this opportunity to choose a different path. Now, I'm very grateful to the Minister for taking the time to meet with me earlier this year regarding Thames Water and the River Stort. And as I said in my remarks, I'll be meeting Thames Water later this week.
I'd be very grateful if she could set out in her response what message she would deliver to Thames Water. Was she in my position and whether she should consider meeting with me again to discuss these repeated failures?
18:37
18:37
Speaker 48
-
Speaker 48
Thank you, Sir Jeremy. As we've heard from many members today, the privatised model in the water sector, to put it mildly, has completely and utterly broken for so many of my constituents. This really does feel like the biggest scandal of the 21st century, with water companies continuing to profit while water users and bill payers are left footing the bill for crumbling infrastructure, water shortages and disgusting sewage spills. It's safe to say that this issue really matters to my constituents in South Dorset Chesil Beach, Ringstead Bay, Lulworth Cove, Durdle door, old Harry Rock, Studland.
Wherever you look across South Dorset, you will find a world renowned coastline. And, of course, South Dorset has been a popular holiday destination for some two centuries now. Sailors and windsurfers gravitate to Portland. Young families flock to Weymouth and Swanage, and walkers and nature lovers alike regularly make their way across to the Isle of Purbeck. Our coastline is central to our lives and it's central to our local economy as well. So I suppose my constituents have a very simple message for the minister and also for the new Prime Minister as well.
Number one, overhaul the toxic and self-serving corporate culture that has been allowed to permeate the water sector. Two, make it clear that this government believes that polluting comes with a price. And three, begin that urgent work of reviewing the model of ownership for the water industry. We must now look at alternative ownership models, whether that be municipal control mutuals not for profits, full nationalisation or a government bond backed public utility. There are so many options on the table.
I think what's clear for my constituents and from the tens and tens of thousands of people who have signed this petition, is they want to see action. They want to see that move to public ownership without further delay. I look forward to hearing from the minister in her winding up remarks, but please, can we consider these options? My constituents are clear. They want better value for money. They want a system that protects the environment and public health, and they want to have that greater and much more meaningful public control of our water industry.
That must be at the core of this government's work. And then finally, just finally, we can stop the spills.
Wherever you look across South Dorset, you will find a world renowned coastline. And, of course, South Dorset has been a popular holiday destination for some two centuries now. Sailors and windsurfers gravitate to Portland. Young families flock to Weymouth and Swanage, and walkers and nature lovers alike regularly make their way across to the Isle of Purbeck. Our coastline is central to our lives and it's central to our local economy as well. So I suppose my constituents have a very simple message for the minister and also for the new Prime Minister as well.
Number one, overhaul the toxic and self-serving corporate culture that has been allowed to permeate the water sector. Two, make it clear that this government believes that polluting comes with a price. And three, begin that urgent work of reviewing the model of ownership for the water industry. We must now look at alternative ownership models, whether that be municipal control mutuals not for profits, full nationalisation or a government bond backed public utility. There are so many options on the table.
I think what's clear for my constituents and from the tens and tens of thousands of people who have signed this petition, is they want to see action. They want to see that move to public ownership without further delay. I look forward to hearing from the minister in her winding up remarks, but please, can we consider these options? My constituents are clear. They want better value for money. They want a system that protects the environment and public health, and they want to have that greater and much more meaningful public control of our water industry.
That must be at the core of this government's work. And then finally, just finally, we can stop the spills.
18:39
18:39
Speaker 49
-
Speaker 49
Thank you, Sir Jeremy. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I'm grateful to the honourable member for Colne Valley for opening this debate and for his patient and gracious fielding of so many interventions. I'd also like to express my thanks to Ash Smith, who I think has just stepped out, and the phenomenal team at Windrush against Sewage Pollution for bringing this petition before Parliament and for their dedication and commitment to protecting our rivers.
I'd also like to thank the other campaigners who are in the gallery today, who are passionate and persevering in their pursuit of cleaner water. Across our country, more than 208,000 people signed this petition, including over 600 of my constituents in the South Cotswolds, which is the ninth most sewage polluted constituency in the country. Last Saturday in the constituency, I stood beside the River Colne at Fairford, with residents who are sick and tired of seeing their river used as a sewer.
I spoke with Debbie Campbell, who is here in the gallery today, who was most charmingly dressed as a poo emoji. Debbie became a campaigner after swallowing polluted water while open water swimming and ending up doubled over in pain. Her experience is shocking, but sadly the pollution that caused it is no longer exceptional. It has become the norm. And behind the sewage scandal lies another scandal. What has happened to the customers money? The promise of privatisation was that private capital would bring investments and efficiency.
But research from the University of Greenwich estimates that between 1991 and 2023, shareholders extracted around £85 billion more from English water and sewerage companies than they actually contributed in new equity. So I will give way.
I'd also like to thank the other campaigners who are in the gallery today, who are passionate and persevering in their pursuit of cleaner water. Across our country, more than 208,000 people signed this petition, including over 600 of my constituents in the South Cotswolds, which is the ninth most sewage polluted constituency in the country. Last Saturday in the constituency, I stood beside the River Colne at Fairford, with residents who are sick and tired of seeing their river used as a sewer.
I spoke with Debbie Campbell, who is here in the gallery today, who was most charmingly dressed as a poo emoji. Debbie became a campaigner after swallowing polluted water while open water swimming and ending up doubled over in pain. Her experience is shocking, but sadly the pollution that caused it is no longer exceptional. It has become the norm. And behind the sewage scandal lies another scandal. What has happened to the customers money? The promise of privatisation was that private capital would bring investments and efficiency.
But research from the University of Greenwich estimates that between 1991 and 2023, shareholders extracted around £85 billion more from English water and sewerage companies than they actually contributed in new equity. So I will give way.
18:41
18:41
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Friend for giving way. The sewage literally flows outside the King of Prussia in Kingsbridge. You have to be really careful when you step outside of the pub every time we have heavy rain. Would the honourable member agree with me that and the over 800 people who signed the petition from my constituency that bills going up and up and up while shareholders are still extracting that money from the water companies and the money is not going into the upgrade in the infrastructure that we need, we have to look again at the ownership model because it is just not working.
18:42
Speaker 49
-
Speaker 49
I thank my honourable friend for her intervention, and I absolutely agree that we do need to get upstream of this problem, and I assure her I do always try and step carefully when stepping out of a pub. The supposed justification for private ownership was that investors would bring money into our water system. Instead. Over those three decades, vastly more money has flowed out to shareholders than shareholders put in. Money went out, infrastructure deteriorated and debt piled up.
And now customers are being told, you pay to put it right. And that is what makes the British public and me so furious. The water companies need to come clean and so does the government. I will give way.
And now customers are being told, you pay to put it right. And that is what makes the British public and me so furious. The water companies need to come clean and so does the government. I will give way.
18:43
Speaker 42
-
Speaker 42
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does she agree with me that there is also some extremely murky arrangements going on in some of our water companies, where a complicated network of different companies exists, and they subcontract from each other, meaning that the customer who pays the bill has no idea what value for money, if any, they are getting.
18:43
18:43
Speaker 49
-
Speaker 49
I thank the honourable lady for her intervention. And I agree that much like our water supply, this needs to be more transparent and stink less. Absolutely. Ministers have been talking about the forthcoming £104 billion investment programme. So the private sector has suddenly reached into its pockets and found that £104 billion to rescue our crumbling water infrastructure, but it hasn't offered itself, has confirmed that this money will come through a mixture of customer bills and yet more borrowing and shareholder equity.
18:44
18:44
18:44
18:44
18:44
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
all that she's saying. Does she also find it strange that we talk about taking tough action against these companies? We talk about the the I think it was £80 million fine, £100 million, over £100 million for Thames Water, who ultimately ends up paying that. Of course, it's not the investor, it's actually we the bill payers. So even then it's not the company's investors that are suffering, it's us.
18:44
Speaker 49
-
Speaker 49
I thank the honourable gentleman for his intervention. And he makes an extremely good point, which I totally agree with. So this is not private enterprise riding to the rescue. This is the customers being made to pay yet again for the consequences of corporate failure. And we cannot take our business elsewhere. If I don't like my supermarket or my bank or my mobile phone provider, I can take my custom elsewhere.
But I can't change from one water company to another unless I physically move house. We are captive customers of a monopoly, and this gives water companies an extraordinary responsibility. But they are not living up to that responsibility. Too often we've seen the risks pushed onto customers while the rewards go to investors. And again, going back to Fairford, we can see exactly how this plays out in the real world. Fairford Sewage Treatment Works was among the approximately 120 Thames water investment schemes that were deferred.
Thames Water's former chair told the committee that more than £1 billion was removed from its capital programme to preserve liquidity. In other words, the investment that was needed to protect communities, rivers and nature was postponed because the company needed to shore up its own financial position. And now my constituents are living with the consequences at Fairford alone. Professor Peter Hammond of Wasp. His analysis records that more than 8100 hours of sewage spills have flowed out into the river since the beginning of 2024.
Under the Environment Agency's heavy rainfall methodology, only 347 of those hours, just 4.3%, were assessed as compliant. That means that over 95% of that outflow was not compliant. So this is not an occasional emergency measure. This is sustained pollution on an industrial scale. And this is not only an assault on people. Rivers are living ecosystems sustaining fish, birds, insects and plants. Pollution strips oxygen from the water and destroys habitats.
And yet nature has no seat in the boardroom and no voice with the regulator. Nature depends on us to speak for it today, and I'm doing what I can, as many colleagues have all across the House, to speak up on behalf of our waterways. In fact, I feel like I've spoken in this house time and time again about sewage failing infrastructure and Thames Water, and yet the sewage keeps flowing, the debts keep mounting, and customers keep being asked to pay more.
Frankly, they have had enough and so have I. So I share the petitioner's diagnosis. The present model has failed. But where the Lib Dems differ is what we believe should happen next. We don't believe, as a number of people across colleagues across the House have mentioned, that we need to spend a long time waiting for a national referendum to tell us something that we already know. The Liberal Democrat answer is mutually owned public benefit water companies, professionally managed but owned by and accountable to the customers who depend on them.
With profits reinvested into the water system rather than extracted for shareholders and for Thames Water in particular. That journey should begin with special administration now take on the creditors, restructure the company and bring it out the other side under a fundamentally different ownership model. But ownership change alone is not enough. The new Clean Water Authority must have the teeth that off. What's so conspicuously lacked? It must inspect assets, publish open data and require companies to measure what they actually put into our rivers.
Not just the duration, but also the volume and the toxicity. I would like to see citizen scientists and environmental experts formally represented in water company government governance. So somebody is at the table to speak for the river itself. And I would like to ask the Minister for three further commitments. Ban bonuses until spills end and leaks are fixed. Introduce a three year cooling off period before the new regulator can employ people from the industry it regulates and create a single social tariff so that nobody is priced out of the precious water.
They cannot do without. The river flows into the Thames and the Thames flows past this Parliament. The evidence of the failure of privatisation is literally on our doorstep. The petitioners are right to demand fundamental change, because the question at the heart of this debate is not simply whether ownership is public or private. It is. Who is the water system here to serve? For too long, customers have paid the bills, carried the risk and lived with the pollution while money flowed elsewhere.
Our water system should serve customers, communities and the environment, not shareholders, creditors and bottom lines. I do not want to have to come back to this chamber any more times to state the obvious, that we have to get upstream of the sewage crisis and change the ownership of the water companies, and to change it now.
But I can't change from one water company to another unless I physically move house. We are captive customers of a monopoly, and this gives water companies an extraordinary responsibility. But they are not living up to that responsibility. Too often we've seen the risks pushed onto customers while the rewards go to investors. And again, going back to Fairford, we can see exactly how this plays out in the real world. Fairford Sewage Treatment Works was among the approximately 120 Thames water investment schemes that were deferred.
Thames Water's former chair told the committee that more than £1 billion was removed from its capital programme to preserve liquidity. In other words, the investment that was needed to protect communities, rivers and nature was postponed because the company needed to shore up its own financial position. And now my constituents are living with the consequences at Fairford alone. Professor Peter Hammond of Wasp. His analysis records that more than 8100 hours of sewage spills have flowed out into the river since the beginning of 2024.
Under the Environment Agency's heavy rainfall methodology, only 347 of those hours, just 4.3%, were assessed as compliant. That means that over 95% of that outflow was not compliant. So this is not an occasional emergency measure. This is sustained pollution on an industrial scale. And this is not only an assault on people. Rivers are living ecosystems sustaining fish, birds, insects and plants. Pollution strips oxygen from the water and destroys habitats.
And yet nature has no seat in the boardroom and no voice with the regulator. Nature depends on us to speak for it today, and I'm doing what I can, as many colleagues have all across the House, to speak up on behalf of our waterways. In fact, I feel like I've spoken in this house time and time again about sewage failing infrastructure and Thames Water, and yet the sewage keeps flowing, the debts keep mounting, and customers keep being asked to pay more.
Frankly, they have had enough and so have I. So I share the petitioner's diagnosis. The present model has failed. But where the Lib Dems differ is what we believe should happen next. We don't believe, as a number of people across colleagues across the House have mentioned, that we need to spend a long time waiting for a national referendum to tell us something that we already know. The Liberal Democrat answer is mutually owned public benefit water companies, professionally managed but owned by and accountable to the customers who depend on them.
With profits reinvested into the water system rather than extracted for shareholders and for Thames Water in particular. That journey should begin with special administration now take on the creditors, restructure the company and bring it out the other side under a fundamentally different ownership model. But ownership change alone is not enough. The new Clean Water Authority must have the teeth that off. What's so conspicuously lacked? It must inspect assets, publish open data and require companies to measure what they actually put into our rivers.
Not just the duration, but also the volume and the toxicity. I would like to see citizen scientists and environmental experts formally represented in water company government governance. So somebody is at the table to speak for the river itself. And I would like to ask the Minister for three further commitments. Ban bonuses until spills end and leaks are fixed. Introduce a three year cooling off period before the new regulator can employ people from the industry it regulates and create a single social tariff so that nobody is priced out of the precious water.
They cannot do without. The river flows into the Thames and the Thames flows past this Parliament. The evidence of the failure of privatisation is literally on our doorstep. The petitioners are right to demand fundamental change, because the question at the heart of this debate is not simply whether ownership is public or private. It is. Who is the water system here to serve? For too long, customers have paid the bills, carried the risk and lived with the pollution while money flowed elsewhere.
Our water system should serve customers, communities and the environment, not shareholders, creditors and bottom lines. I do not want to have to come back to this chamber any more times to state the obvious, that we have to get upstream of the sewage crisis and change the ownership of the water companies, and to change it now.
18:50
18:50
18:50
18:50
Speaker 40
-
Speaker 40
Sir Jeremy, and it's a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. Can I first start on behalf of His Majesty's opposition, in offering our sincere condolences to the Prime Minister on the very sad passing of his father. He is in. He and his family are in our thoughts and prayers. Can I thank and congratulate the honourable member for Colne Valley for opening this debate and a very powerful contribution to the debate, and we've heard many powerful contributions from right across the House.
Now, normally at this point, as the shadow minister responding, I would put my life jacket on and I would get in a canoe and I'd start paddling round everyone's constituencies. But there are so many that have spoken today. I would use up my entire time allocation by name, checking everyone's constituencies, but thank everyone for their powerful contributions, speaking on behalf of their constituents, raising issues about the unacceptable behaviour and performance of many of the water companies. Now, every family, household or business uses water.
We all need it. It is a life giving, essential resource. As a result, we are all, by definition, we all have an intrinsic interest in water. How much we pay for it, what services we receive, the performance of our local water company, the sustainability and future of our water supply. The petition we are debating today has reached over 208,000 signatures, and I thank all of the petitioners for this and the over 300 people in my Epping Forest constituency who have signed it, expressing their clear dissatisfaction with the current state of our water sector.
For too long, customers have seen water companies in the news for the wrong reasons. From awful environmental pollution spills to unacceptable water outages affecting tens of thousands of consumers. In fact, during this summer's extreme heat in August, many, many thousands of people and properties in my constituency of Epping Forest, including in Loughton, Chigwell, Buckhurst Hill and Epping were left completely without water for up to a week, let down by Thames Water due to burst pipes and failing infrastructure.
Vulnerable constituents were left in distressed homes without water, people not being able to flush their toilets or bathe, parents not having water to make up bottles for their babies. Livestock owners panicking over getting water to their animals. Communication and logistics from Thames Water were very, very poor. Priority service customers were openly saying that they had been told they would not receive any bottled water, despite being priority customers, that companies have specific duties to the response by Thames Water.
As we've heard across the House today in many situations was wholly unacceptable. Bottled water was provided in too few locations that were not convenient to get to outside of Epping Forest, and those who could do so faced agonisingly long queues in the scorching summer heat. This happened in the hottest week of the year. Other locations that did become available in my constituency either ran out of bottled water or were closed early. To add insult to injury, this all took place in the context of the news of Thames Water's new chief financial officer receiving a £1 million welcome package.
My constituents and constituents across the country are rightly asking how this can be justified when Thames Water failed to provide basic services while bills continue to rise, a hike of a staggering 36% has already been greenlit for 2025 2030 by the water regulator, and there's more to come following the announcement over the summer. Now, I know that my constituents and those who have faced water outages across the country would be grateful if the minister could explain in her response what steps she is taking to ensure water companies step up to the plate and properly prepare for such crises, so they are not left in such distressing circumstances again? And I've been opposite the Minister for a number of debates and bill committees, and it's a pleasure to serve opposite her, and I know she is genuinely engaged in this, and I raise these issues with her over the summer, and I just hope that she can really take this forward.
Listening to the voices of our constituents in these important matters. Now, in rural and semi-rural areas, we must not forget that such water is also vital for livestock such as farm animals, horses and ponies. I declare an interest here as a veterinary surgeon. As an illustration, Sir Jeremy, a 500 kilogram horse needs around 25l a day and that's not on a hot day. And a lactating dairy cow upwards of 100l.
Now that's no small amount, I assure you. That's a lot of bottled water. And what happens in these situations? The water companies don't step up. It's local communities. It's livery yard owners. It's farmers who actually roll their sleeves up and help each other out to get valuable water to these animals. And this is something I've raised with the minister before, and I hope that she can take that forward to put pressure on water companies when we get these outages, which are sadly now very predictable and will occur, that actually animals as well as people need to be looked out for.
We've heard today about the people. I've highlighted the situation with people in my constituency, vulnerable people not able to do their basic lives. But then we've also got other situations as well. So I urge the minister to really put pressure on these water companies for when we get these outages, as we've seen in this summer in my constituency and in many constituencies across the country. And we've also debated frequently in this chamber and in the main chamber, people in Kent and Sussex who've had unacceptable water outages from south east water, and we've debated that across the despatch box.
I would also press the minister once again to please explain to the House what steps she and the government are taking to ensure a market based solution can be found for the Thames Water situation now? No, I'm not going to give away at this point. His Majesty's official opposition has been very, very clear. We are not cheerleaders for this water company, but we do not want to see Thames Water fold because while water supply would continue, it carries the serious risk of higher bills for customers and wouldn't solve all of the issues facing the company.
Now, bizarrely, the third party also a few months ago led legal action that could have sunk the company and with them reform. Strangely, their allies on this issue appear to be happy for the company to go under exposing taxpayers to billions and pushing consumer water bills sky high billions of pounds that we as a country simply just cannot afford. As the government has admitted, outages like the one I have described in Epping Forest also highlight the real and present impacts of climate change and increased demand.
We have outdated water infrastructure designed to cope with significantly less demand than it is now required to do. Changing weather is also risking more leaks, bursts and breakages. The water outages that tend to follow have knock on implications for people, schools, businesses and healthcare. It would be important to know the economic and social costs of these outages, which have occurred over the last few months and years. I wonder if the minister can take the opportunity to provide some reassurance that existing infrastructure is being assessed to prevent leakages or bursts in the first instances, and to hold water companies to account for this.
Because of the work in this area of the previous conservative government, we now understand the severity of the situation surrounding water companies performance in the first place. I'll remind honourable members offer they might laugh, but I will remind them of this. When Labour left office in 2010, only 7% 7% of storm overflows were monitored. The previous government proactively worked to increase this, and by the end of 2023, this had increased to 100%.
So from 7% to 100%. Now this, Sir Jeremy, is basic science. It is only when something is measured and vital data are collected that the extent of a problem can be seen. It was the conservative government that started this and started to put in place measures to address the situation, something that they, and indeed the New Labour government have found is complex and not an easy situation to solve. Furthermore, the previous.
I'm not going to give away. Furthermore, the previous conservative. I'm just giving you some facts about where the problems we.
Now, normally at this point, as the shadow minister responding, I would put my life jacket on and I would get in a canoe and I'd start paddling round everyone's constituencies. But there are so many that have spoken today. I would use up my entire time allocation by name, checking everyone's constituencies, but thank everyone for their powerful contributions, speaking on behalf of their constituents, raising issues about the unacceptable behaviour and performance of many of the water companies. Now, every family, household or business uses water.
We all need it. It is a life giving, essential resource. As a result, we are all, by definition, we all have an intrinsic interest in water. How much we pay for it, what services we receive, the performance of our local water company, the sustainability and future of our water supply. The petition we are debating today has reached over 208,000 signatures, and I thank all of the petitioners for this and the over 300 people in my Epping Forest constituency who have signed it, expressing their clear dissatisfaction with the current state of our water sector.
For too long, customers have seen water companies in the news for the wrong reasons. From awful environmental pollution spills to unacceptable water outages affecting tens of thousands of consumers. In fact, during this summer's extreme heat in August, many, many thousands of people and properties in my constituency of Epping Forest, including in Loughton, Chigwell, Buckhurst Hill and Epping were left completely without water for up to a week, let down by Thames Water due to burst pipes and failing infrastructure.
Vulnerable constituents were left in distressed homes without water, people not being able to flush their toilets or bathe, parents not having water to make up bottles for their babies. Livestock owners panicking over getting water to their animals. Communication and logistics from Thames Water were very, very poor. Priority service customers were openly saying that they had been told they would not receive any bottled water, despite being priority customers, that companies have specific duties to the response by Thames Water.
As we've heard across the House today in many situations was wholly unacceptable. Bottled water was provided in too few locations that were not convenient to get to outside of Epping Forest, and those who could do so faced agonisingly long queues in the scorching summer heat. This happened in the hottest week of the year. Other locations that did become available in my constituency either ran out of bottled water or were closed early. To add insult to injury, this all took place in the context of the news of Thames Water's new chief financial officer receiving a £1 million welcome package.
My constituents and constituents across the country are rightly asking how this can be justified when Thames Water failed to provide basic services while bills continue to rise, a hike of a staggering 36% has already been greenlit for 2025 2030 by the water regulator, and there's more to come following the announcement over the summer. Now, I know that my constituents and those who have faced water outages across the country would be grateful if the minister could explain in her response what steps she is taking to ensure water companies step up to the plate and properly prepare for such crises, so they are not left in such distressing circumstances again? And I've been opposite the Minister for a number of debates and bill committees, and it's a pleasure to serve opposite her, and I know she is genuinely engaged in this, and I raise these issues with her over the summer, and I just hope that she can really take this forward.
Listening to the voices of our constituents in these important matters. Now, in rural and semi-rural areas, we must not forget that such water is also vital for livestock such as farm animals, horses and ponies. I declare an interest here as a veterinary surgeon. As an illustration, Sir Jeremy, a 500 kilogram horse needs around 25l a day and that's not on a hot day. And a lactating dairy cow upwards of 100l.
Now that's no small amount, I assure you. That's a lot of bottled water. And what happens in these situations? The water companies don't step up. It's local communities. It's livery yard owners. It's farmers who actually roll their sleeves up and help each other out to get valuable water to these animals. And this is something I've raised with the minister before, and I hope that she can take that forward to put pressure on water companies when we get these outages, which are sadly now very predictable and will occur, that actually animals as well as people need to be looked out for.
We've heard today about the people. I've highlighted the situation with people in my constituency, vulnerable people not able to do their basic lives. But then we've also got other situations as well. So I urge the minister to really put pressure on these water companies for when we get these outages, as we've seen in this summer in my constituency and in many constituencies across the country. And we've also debated frequently in this chamber and in the main chamber, people in Kent and Sussex who've had unacceptable water outages from south east water, and we've debated that across the despatch box.
I would also press the minister once again to please explain to the House what steps she and the government are taking to ensure a market based solution can be found for the Thames Water situation now? No, I'm not going to give away at this point. His Majesty's official opposition has been very, very clear. We are not cheerleaders for this water company, but we do not want to see Thames Water fold because while water supply would continue, it carries the serious risk of higher bills for customers and wouldn't solve all of the issues facing the company.
Now, bizarrely, the third party also a few months ago led legal action that could have sunk the company and with them reform. Strangely, their allies on this issue appear to be happy for the company to go under exposing taxpayers to billions and pushing consumer water bills sky high billions of pounds that we as a country simply just cannot afford. As the government has admitted, outages like the one I have described in Epping Forest also highlight the real and present impacts of climate change and increased demand.
We have outdated water infrastructure designed to cope with significantly less demand than it is now required to do. Changing weather is also risking more leaks, bursts and breakages. The water outages that tend to follow have knock on implications for people, schools, businesses and healthcare. It would be important to know the economic and social costs of these outages, which have occurred over the last few months and years. I wonder if the minister can take the opportunity to provide some reassurance that existing infrastructure is being assessed to prevent leakages or bursts in the first instances, and to hold water companies to account for this.
Because of the work in this area of the previous conservative government, we now understand the severity of the situation surrounding water companies performance in the first place. I'll remind honourable members offer they might laugh, but I will remind them of this. When Labour left office in 2010, only 7% 7% of storm overflows were monitored. The previous government proactively worked to increase this, and by the end of 2023, this had increased to 100%.
So from 7% to 100%. Now this, Sir Jeremy, is basic science. It is only when something is measured and vital data are collected that the extent of a problem can be seen. It was the conservative government that started this and started to put in place measures to address the situation, something that they, and indeed the New Labour government have found is complex and not an easy situation to solve. Furthermore, the previous.
I'm not going to give away. Furthermore, the previous conservative. I'm just giving you some facts about where the problems we.
19:00
Speaker 39
-
Speaker 39
I'm sorry to interrupt you, gentlemen, for a moment. The honourable gentleman has made it perfectly clear he's not giving way. All points of view in this debate must be heard and heard respectfully. So if the Shadow Minister is not giving way, there's little point in continuing to stand until he changes his mind. Neil Hudson.
19:00
Speaker 40
-
Speaker 40
Thank you, Sir Jeremy. Now, furthermore, the previous conservative government's landmark Environment Act in 2021 introduced significant changes to how water quality is managed and monitored in England and Wales. The Act mandates enhanced reporting, monitoring and treatment compliance measures from businesses. It also establishes long term goals to limit pollution and protect natural water resources from a wider range of potential pollutants. Now, when we consider what action the current government has taken, the minister, I'm sure, will cite the Water Special Measures Act, and I was on the bill committee opposing her and shadowing her on that bill committee, and I really appreciated her constructive work on that.
Now, while it was encouraging to see the current government adopt some of the measures the previous government had already introduced, such as banning water company bonuses for bosses if the company had committed serious criminal breaches that damaged the environment. It was very disappointing that the government failed to provide its support to very constructive amendments that I and the opposition tabled, including to ring fence funding from enforcement fines to bespoke water restoration funds, guarantee that companies fix the environmental damage they cause locally.
Require off what to create rules on financial reporting in its remuneration and governance rules, and reduce consumer bills if companies were hit with enforcement fines, and to ensure that companies did not leverage too much debt. Sensible, constructive amendments voted down by the government. Indeed, there is a recurring pattern of the current government attempting to claim credit for measures introduced by the previous government. The current government has repeatedly claimed to have secured £104 billion of investment in the water system.
However, £93 billion of that investment had been submitted by water companies in October 2023. Under the previous government. The Independent Water Commission published its final report in July 2025, and it was a comprehensive document containing 88 recommendations. Since then. The government published its Water White Paper in January 2026, and in May 2026, the King's Speech included a promise of a clean water bill with a change of prime Minister.
Since all of this, I would appreciate clarity from the minister about whether the government plans to proceed with special administration orders for water companies like Thames Water, as was first suggested as and do this, and are they going to do this as bespoke individual actions or whether as a nationalisation programme? And this will form part of a clean water bill? And can she confirm to all of us, when will we see the Clean Water Bill come before Parliament? A well functioning, properly regulated water system is achievable if there is the political will to make it happen.
The public want change, as has been proved by the petition today, and His Majesty's official opposition is ready to work constructively with the government on ensuring this is done for the benefit of people right across the country. He.
Now, while it was encouraging to see the current government adopt some of the measures the previous government had already introduced, such as banning water company bonuses for bosses if the company had committed serious criminal breaches that damaged the environment. It was very disappointing that the government failed to provide its support to very constructive amendments that I and the opposition tabled, including to ring fence funding from enforcement fines to bespoke water restoration funds, guarantee that companies fix the environmental damage they cause locally.
Require off what to create rules on financial reporting in its remuneration and governance rules, and reduce consumer bills if companies were hit with enforcement fines, and to ensure that companies did not leverage too much debt. Sensible, constructive amendments voted down by the government. Indeed, there is a recurring pattern of the current government attempting to claim credit for measures introduced by the previous government. The current government has repeatedly claimed to have secured £104 billion of investment in the water system.
However, £93 billion of that investment had been submitted by water companies in October 2023. Under the previous government. The Independent Water Commission published its final report in July 2025, and it was a comprehensive document containing 88 recommendations. Since then. The government published its Water White Paper in January 2026, and in May 2026, the King's Speech included a promise of a clean water bill with a change of prime Minister.
Since all of this, I would appreciate clarity from the minister about whether the government plans to proceed with special administration orders for water companies like Thames Water, as was first suggested as and do this, and are they going to do this as bespoke individual actions or whether as a nationalisation programme? And this will form part of a clean water bill? And can she confirm to all of us, when will we see the Clean Water Bill come before Parliament? A well functioning, properly regulated water system is achievable if there is the political will to make it happen.
The public want change, as has been proved by the petition today, and His Majesty's official opposition is ready to work constructively with the government on ensuring this is done for the benefit of people right across the country. He.
19:04
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Thank you so much, Sir Jeremy. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I would like to also offer my sympathy to the Prime Minister on the loss of his father. It hurts, whatever age you are to lose a parent. And again, I thank honourable friends and honourable members for how kind everyone was when I lost my dad earlier on in the year. So thanks everybody. But I also thank the honourable member for Cornwall for securing this important debate, and I know he cares deeply about this issue.
And of course, so do so many members of the public. In fact, I imagine many more than the 208,000 people who have signed this petition. And I'd also like to pay tribute to all the citizen scientists, all the environmental groups, all of the campaigners, all members of Parliament from across the House. And particularly I'd like to mention Julie and Reuben, and I hope I'm not giving too much away, Sir Jeremy, when I say to Julie how deeply moved both I and the previous Secretary of State was after we met her, and how touched and privileged we felt to be presented with one of Havers shells as a reminder of the need to campaign on this, and I made her a promise then that we would focus much more on public health, and I think we have generally lost that focus on public health.
And that is absolutely one of the key things in all of the reforms we're trying to do is, is, is putting public health back in the heart of water, which is why we created the water system to begin with. It was from public health, and it should be focusing on that right now. And just to say the, you know, all of the failures that people have mentioned are outrageous. All of the people who've become sick, the impact it's had on places that people love.
When you talk about when honourable members talk about places they used to paddle in and they can't now, places they used to visit, I mean, it is it is horrific that we have ended up in this situation. And I am very delighted that I have always wanted to bring forward a water bill that meets the political moment and the public appetite for change, and I am very delighted that it feels that we are closer to that with with the change in in Prime Minister opening up options that were previously no longer not available.
Suddenly, as I will mention, more things are on the table and I apologize in advance for being an irritating politician. We can quote that one irritating politician who's not going to give specific answers, but that's honestly because we are working through working through things right now. We're working through things across government, and we're looking to bring forward a bill that really does meet that appetite for change. And there's been many key messages from honourable people.
And as the shadow spokesman mentioned, I would normally go around everybody and sort of respond to everyone. So apologies, I'm not going to do that because I have too many of you are. Too many of you spoke, but I will say that I hope you recognise that I have been a very open member of Parliament. In fact, we got we got a PK in from from an opposition saying, how many meetings have ministers done with backbench MPs? And I've done 141, Sir Jeremy.
So I think I will.
And of course, so do so many members of the public. In fact, I imagine many more than the 208,000 people who have signed this petition. And I'd also like to pay tribute to all the citizen scientists, all the environmental groups, all of the campaigners, all members of Parliament from across the House. And particularly I'd like to mention Julie and Reuben, and I hope I'm not giving too much away, Sir Jeremy, when I say to Julie how deeply moved both I and the previous Secretary of State was after we met her, and how touched and privileged we felt to be presented with one of Havers shells as a reminder of the need to campaign on this, and I made her a promise then that we would focus much more on public health, and I think we have generally lost that focus on public health.
And that is absolutely one of the key things in all of the reforms we're trying to do is, is, is putting public health back in the heart of water, which is why we created the water system to begin with. It was from public health, and it should be focusing on that right now. And just to say the, you know, all of the failures that people have mentioned are outrageous. All of the people who've become sick, the impact it's had on places that people love.
When you talk about when honourable members talk about places they used to paddle in and they can't now, places they used to visit, I mean, it is it is horrific that we have ended up in this situation. And I am very delighted that I have always wanted to bring forward a water bill that meets the political moment and the public appetite for change, and I am very delighted that it feels that we are closer to that with with the change in in Prime Minister opening up options that were previously no longer not available.
Suddenly, as I will mention, more things are on the table and I apologize in advance for being an irritating politician. We can quote that one irritating politician who's not going to give specific answers, but that's honestly because we are working through working through things right now. We're working through things across government, and we're looking to bring forward a bill that really does meet that appetite for change. And there's been many key messages from honourable people.
And as the shadow spokesman mentioned, I would normally go around everybody and sort of respond to everyone. So apologies, I'm not going to do that because I have too many of you are. Too many of you spoke, but I will say that I hope you recognise that I have been a very open member of Parliament. In fact, we got we got a PK in from from an opposition saying, how many meetings have ministers done with backbench MPs? And I've done 141, Sir Jeremy.
So I think I will.
19:07
19:07
19:07
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
First of all, can I reassure her that she is not an irritating minister at all? I think she's generally held to be a very good minister. But could I tempt her to just enlarge slightly on what she said? Because one of the things that many of us feel when we've been talking about a SA is that people talk about, well, let's start with Thames Water. It's the obvious one to start with.
It could. The reason for the minister's hesitation in elaboration be that the government is now looking much more holistically at the whole sector, and what could be done with the whole water sector.
It could. The reason for the minister's hesitation in elaboration be that the government is now looking much more holistically at the whole sector, and what could be done with the whole water sector.
19:08
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
And I thank my friend for his intervention. And we are looking at all of the sector and what can be done right across it, because it's quite clear and the Prime Minister has been absolutely clear. He's been clear in all of the comments he's made. In his words, the current water sector is a leaking monument to a system that prioritises private over public. And he said words very similar to that on a number of different questions and different occasions.
And I completely understand why people are asking those fundamental questions about ownership, because for too long, pollution, poor performance and financial instability in the water industry has left customers and communities to pay the price. Infrastructure is crumbling. We see that with water outages and lots of honourable members mentioned points around national security and water. Our resilience, our changing climate, how can we meet the changing climate when we have a system at the moment that is so ineffective, and I want to move towards a better system where we're thinking about the management of water in a catchment, where we're thinking about water and flooding and wetlands and nature, and how we can do all of this together.
But to do this, we need significant reform to give people and places greater control and make the industry work for them again. Our water industry must be fit for climate change of the future. Believe it or not, I know that nobody here would question it. But there are some, would you believe, who question whether climate change is real. It's real. Everyone just remember what it was like in summer delivering clean waterways, reliable services, and fair and predictable bills.
But whatever the ownership model, we face a challenge around ageing infrastructure. We need major investment and the provision of basic services and prevention of sewage spills is a fundamental requirement of the sector. 30 years of privatisation has not left the system in a good state, and that's probably an understatement. And I want to create a system that protects customers, improves the environment and secures reliable water services for the future. There is no single easy fix, but the Prime Minister has been very clear that the failures of the past cannot continue.
We will look at all possible solutions for the water industry, and we will bring forward reforms to make the water sector work for people and places again, as the Prime Minister has said later in the year, our ten year plan for Britain will set out plans for stronger public control over essentials such as water. But I will not pretend there is a simple one answer to the problems facing the sector, but what is not in question is the need for significant reform.
That means tougher regulation, and we have started to see that through the increased inspections from the water, the Environment Agency, through the court cases that are coming through through the fines that they're starting to issue, we are seeing that tougher regulation, but there still need greater enforcement, greater financial resilience, and absolutely a stronger voice for customers and communities. And many honourable members talked about that point around Democratic voice, which I agree is missing in the water sector.
And I know I spoke to the honourable member for York Central. We were having a quick conversation about this yesterday and about how we need to sort of bring their voice and have that accountability back to place. And again, I know the Prime Minister's complete commitment to looking at devolution , and how can organisations be responsive and answerable to place. And there were a few other. I'll try and go through a few different bits and pieces.
Bathing water sites are prioritised for upgrades and I know the honourable member who's not here anymore. We both share a love of pipe solutions which is looking at nature, wetlands, how we can create spaces for water to go to prevent them entering, entering the system and only looking at assets. We have introduced these MOT tests which has uncovered more problems. When you first go in and inspect, you're going to identify different problems and we are seeing that.
I also want to pick up on a point, and I apologize. I didn't write down the name one of the honourable members made about the trade unions and the workers. We can never forget. The workers on the front line are not responsible for the failures of the water company, and I have absolute respect to them. And I've met with the trade unions on a regular basis. And one of the things they sort of mentioned to me is the abuse that they get when they're out working, and I want to say that they are not responsible, they are going to work.
And in fact, I would say that the workers who are out there on the front line are the ones holding these companies together. So I pay wholehearted tribute to the trade unionists and the workers in all of those words, water companies who are doing a great job in incredibly difficult situations and going through some of the other points that were made on the fairness. Yes. Completely agree. The system isn't fair at the moment.
Rainwater management. We do need to look at drinking water. England's drinking water is world leading and I think on many things where we can say there's failure. Actually our drinking water quality is is incredibly, incredibly high. And on the point of referendums, I think one honourable member mentioned they were scarred by the previous referendum, of which I still feel deeply myself. I think we know what the public think about this, about this sector.
So the Prime Minister has been clear that the government's priorities must be the public's priorities. People want more ownership and control over the things that matter most to them. Public trust in the sector has been damaged by pollution, financial difficulties at some companies and a failure to invest sufficiently in infrastructure. Channel Four's dirty Business further highlighted the public concern about sewage pollution, shining a light on issues that matter to communities. Public interest should be at the heart of how our critical services operate.
For decades, the essential services that underpin daily life, including water, have suffered from over privatisation, leading to high costs to the public. The government is clear that the public has a right to expect these services to be affordable and accountable. We have established a public controlled task force that will rewire the state, examining how public control across sectors, including water, can be utilised to return them to public service and bring down costs for families. The ambition is reflected in the reforms we are already taking forward strengthening accountability, improving performance, giving customers and communities a stronger voice and ensuring the water sector works in the public interest.
We know that bold action is needed and that is why we are fundamentally reforming the water sector. So I would like to conclude by thanking everyone, thanking the campaigners. Again, the 208 000 people and everyone involved in campaigning and working together on this issue. I hope this is an issue where we can all unite and push forward together to build the water system that we need for our communities, for our environment, and absolutely for our public health.
Thanks, everyone.
And I completely understand why people are asking those fundamental questions about ownership, because for too long, pollution, poor performance and financial instability in the water industry has left customers and communities to pay the price. Infrastructure is crumbling. We see that with water outages and lots of honourable members mentioned points around national security and water. Our resilience, our changing climate, how can we meet the changing climate when we have a system at the moment that is so ineffective, and I want to move towards a better system where we're thinking about the management of water in a catchment, where we're thinking about water and flooding and wetlands and nature, and how we can do all of this together.
But to do this, we need significant reform to give people and places greater control and make the industry work for them again. Our water industry must be fit for climate change of the future. Believe it or not, I know that nobody here would question it. But there are some, would you believe, who question whether climate change is real. It's real. Everyone just remember what it was like in summer delivering clean waterways, reliable services, and fair and predictable bills.
But whatever the ownership model, we face a challenge around ageing infrastructure. We need major investment and the provision of basic services and prevention of sewage spills is a fundamental requirement of the sector. 30 years of privatisation has not left the system in a good state, and that's probably an understatement. And I want to create a system that protects customers, improves the environment and secures reliable water services for the future. There is no single easy fix, but the Prime Minister has been very clear that the failures of the past cannot continue.
We will look at all possible solutions for the water industry, and we will bring forward reforms to make the water sector work for people and places again, as the Prime Minister has said later in the year, our ten year plan for Britain will set out plans for stronger public control over essentials such as water. But I will not pretend there is a simple one answer to the problems facing the sector, but what is not in question is the need for significant reform.
That means tougher regulation, and we have started to see that through the increased inspections from the water, the Environment Agency, through the court cases that are coming through through the fines that they're starting to issue, we are seeing that tougher regulation, but there still need greater enforcement, greater financial resilience, and absolutely a stronger voice for customers and communities. And many honourable members talked about that point around Democratic voice, which I agree is missing in the water sector.
And I know I spoke to the honourable member for York Central. We were having a quick conversation about this yesterday and about how we need to sort of bring their voice and have that accountability back to place. And again, I know the Prime Minister's complete commitment to looking at devolution , and how can organisations be responsive and answerable to place. And there were a few other. I'll try and go through a few different bits and pieces.
Bathing water sites are prioritised for upgrades and I know the honourable member who's not here anymore. We both share a love of pipe solutions which is looking at nature, wetlands, how we can create spaces for water to go to prevent them entering, entering the system and only looking at assets. We have introduced these MOT tests which has uncovered more problems. When you first go in and inspect, you're going to identify different problems and we are seeing that.
I also want to pick up on a point, and I apologize. I didn't write down the name one of the honourable members made about the trade unions and the workers. We can never forget. The workers on the front line are not responsible for the failures of the water company, and I have absolute respect to them. And I've met with the trade unions on a regular basis. And one of the things they sort of mentioned to me is the abuse that they get when they're out working, and I want to say that they are not responsible, they are going to work.
And in fact, I would say that the workers who are out there on the front line are the ones holding these companies together. So I pay wholehearted tribute to the trade unionists and the workers in all of those words, water companies who are doing a great job in incredibly difficult situations and going through some of the other points that were made on the fairness. Yes. Completely agree. The system isn't fair at the moment.
Rainwater management. We do need to look at drinking water. England's drinking water is world leading and I think on many things where we can say there's failure. Actually our drinking water quality is is incredibly, incredibly high. And on the point of referendums, I think one honourable member mentioned they were scarred by the previous referendum, of which I still feel deeply myself. I think we know what the public think about this, about this sector.
So the Prime Minister has been clear that the government's priorities must be the public's priorities. People want more ownership and control over the things that matter most to them. Public trust in the sector has been damaged by pollution, financial difficulties at some companies and a failure to invest sufficiently in infrastructure. Channel Four's dirty Business further highlighted the public concern about sewage pollution, shining a light on issues that matter to communities. Public interest should be at the heart of how our critical services operate.
For decades, the essential services that underpin daily life, including water, have suffered from over privatisation, leading to high costs to the public. The government is clear that the public has a right to expect these services to be affordable and accountable. We have established a public controlled task force that will rewire the state, examining how public control across sectors, including water, can be utilised to return them to public service and bring down costs for families. The ambition is reflected in the reforms we are already taking forward strengthening accountability, improving performance, giving customers and communities a stronger voice and ensuring the water sector works in the public interest.
We know that bold action is needed and that is why we are fundamentally reforming the water sector. So I would like to conclude by thanking everyone, thanking the campaigners. Again, the 208 000 people and everyone involved in campaigning and working together on this issue. I hope this is an issue where we can all unite and push forward together to build the water system that we need for our communities, for our environment, and absolutely for our public health.
Thanks, everyone.
19:14
19:14
19:15
Speaker 52
-
Speaker 52
Thanks, Mr.. Jeremy, I think, you know, it's got to be I have to start with the thanks to not just ash for the petition, but the many, many campaigners that have worked so hard and tirelessly on this issue. You've made sure there's no hiding place for the water companies, and that's the most important thing. This is out in the open. It's clearly understood by the public. We know the public view this as a completely broken model and a demanding, significant change.
So many, many thanks. I know you'll keep that work going and you need to keep that work going, because you need to keep all of us on our toes and actually pin us down to make sure that we deliver as well. Also like to thank all of the members. I think there's been a clear consensus across this House that the model is broken. I think there are some nuances in terms of of views on what the solutions are, but the starting point is very clearly that the privatised model doesn't work.
And if we go back to 1989 and the architect of this, Margaret Thatcher, when she said, you know, don't pontificate, look in the light of facts. Well, I think we've all looked in the light of facts. We know where we are. We know that we need to make that change. I said in my speech, this government has to be brave. I'll say that again. We have to be brave. There are many issues clearly on the road to public ownership, but that doesn't mean we we give up at the first hurdle.
We have a direction that we've talked about, many of us, and we have to find solutions and ways to overcome those obstacles and make this a reality. So again, many, many thanks, ash, and to everybody else, and many thanks to all the members who contributed to this discussion.
So many, many thanks. I know you'll keep that work going and you need to keep that work going, because you need to keep all of us on our toes and actually pin us down to make sure that we deliver as well. Also like to thank all of the members. I think there's been a clear consensus across this House that the model is broken. I think there are some nuances in terms of of views on what the solutions are, but the starting point is very clearly that the privatised model doesn't work.
And if we go back to 1989 and the architect of this, Margaret Thatcher, when she said, you know, don't pontificate, look in the light of facts. Well, I think we've all looked in the light of facts. We know where we are. We know that we need to make that change. I said in my speech, this government has to be brave. I'll say that again. We have to be brave. There are many issues clearly on the road to public ownership, but that doesn't mean we we give up at the first hurdle.
We have a direction that we've talked about, many of us, and we have to find solutions and ways to overcome those obstacles and make this a reality. So again, many, many thanks, ash, and to everybody else, and many thanks to all the members who contributed to this discussion.
19:17
19:17
Speaker 39
-
Speaker 39
Very much grateful to the honourable gentleman and to everyone who's spoken. And I also thank those in the public gallery for attending this evening. I know some of you have had to be patient to wait for a seat in the gallery, so thank you for that. The question, therefore, is that this House has considered E-petition 762640 relating to a referendum on public ownership of the water sector. As many as are of that opinion say I.
Contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The sitting stands adjourned. Order! Order!
Contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The sitting stands adjourned. Order! Order!