Thames Water: Government Support

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Charlie Maynard]

Yes, it does. I think Ofwat is doing exactly what the company’s creditors want it to do, and I wonder why that is happening, because it should not be.

Finally, there is a failure to innovate. There are a host of technologies out there, and far too often we hear the same old lines about Victorian sewers, cameras and how impossible it all is. There is a huge range of leak detection, pipeline monitoring, protective maintenance, trenchless pipe repair and pressure management technologies. I hear from Oxfordshire firms that it is easier to sell sewer technology solutions into the US and Europe than into the UK, so something is going seriously wrong. We could start by looking at whether the incentives are effectively aligned; I do not believe they are.

What are the consequences of this failure to act? It is easy to lay a lot of the blame at the last Government, but the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 was more window dressing than action. I am new to Parliament, but I was particularly dismayed that not a single word of a single proposed amendment from any party was accepted by the Minister. I wish that in Parliament we all had enough confidence to accept good ideas where we found them—I live in hope.

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

On that point, the hon. Gentleman is incorrect. Actually, compromise amendments were reached on a few occasions, so I want to gently push back on what he says. Cross-party amendments in the other place, where the Bill began, were discussed and accepted, so it is factually incorrect to say that no amendments were accepted.

[Charlie Maynard]

None of the 60 amendments in the Commons, or however many there were, was accepted. The rejected proposals included putting flow meters on the outflows of sewage treatment works, which is sort of logical; establishing targets to reduce pollution over time, using existing benchmarks of hours of spilled sewage; making sewage treatment works’ calculations more transparent; and bringing environmental experts and consumer representatives on to water boards.

The Labour Government are now allowing a public utility company to line the pockets of bankers and hedge funds at the expense of bill payers. As someone said in the Financial Times this week,

“with water, it’s a total monopoly and a total shambles. A shambopoly if you will”.

The Government’s support for Thames Water essentially amounts to unconditional support for the company’s creditors, at a direct and massive cost to its customers.

What do we need to do instead? First, we need to put the company out of its financial misery and put it into special administration. We should allow its debt to be massively written down to something like three times the cash flow or thereabouts. If the debt is reduced, the company will have a sufficiently strong balance sheet to allow it to invest in the infrastructure we desperately need and to spend our bill payments on fixing treatment works and pipe networks, rather than paying interest. We should allow water companies coming out of special administration to be mutually owned by their customers and professionally managed. We should set pollution baselines and pollution reduction targets and get serious about putting transparency targets and technology to work to clean up our rivers.

Special administration is clearly the most logical option at the moment, but I believe that the Government are shying away from it because of threats of legal action against them, phantasmagorical scenarios of financial Armageddon, or both. Please do not let Thames Water’s lobbyists, including Ruth Kelly, the ex-Labour Minister who is now chair of Water UK, to scaremonger you out of taking the action that 16 million consumers—your electorate—need. Those scenarios are patently not true, and it is best to ask Thames Water about that. As per page 92 of the independent expert report from Thames Water’s adviser, Teneo, the net cost to the Treasury of taking the company into special administration, even in the worst-case scenario, is zero—please look it up.

Instead, we now have this bizarre situation whereby a Labour Government are cheerleading the American hedge funds and private equity funds taking over our largest water company and making a massive profit out of its customers. What goes for Thames Water will very likely go for the rest of the sector, so the signal that you and your Government are sending the sector—

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a real pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I wish you, and anybody celebrating, a very happy Easter—I hope that it is a peaceful and enjoyable day. I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for securing this debate and giving us space and time to discuss this important issue.

I hope that I can use this debate as an opportunity to address some of the concerns being voiced around Thames Water and the water industry. Since I am feeling rather positive and getting ready for Easter, instead of “10 things I hate about”, I would rather come up with 10 things that might give us reason for hope and renewal in the water industry. To give 10 reasons for hope, since we have been elected we have: one, introduced the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 to ban bonuses; two, with the Water (Special Measures) Act, introduced criminal liability; three, introduced automatic penalties; four, set up the independent commission; five, changed the articles of association; six, ringfenced money for investment; seven, doubled the compensation for burst pipes, which has come up through the guaranteed standards scheme; eight, created customer panels for water companies; nine, passed bathing water reforms; 10, published storm overflow guidance just last week. And this new Labour Government have not even been in office for a year.

Thinking of fairness and justice, I generally have an aversion to criticising people who cannot be here to defend themselves, so I want to reflect on the comment made about Ruth Kelly. She works for Water UK; she does not work for Thames Water, so characterising her as a defender of Thames Water is not entirely correct.

[Charlie Maynard]

Will the Minister give way?

[Emma Hardy]

I am happy to, if the hon. Member wishes to retract his comment.

[Charlie Maynard]

To be clear, I said that Ruth Kelly is the chair of Water UK—I said exactly that.

[Emma Hardy]

Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. Member as also saying that she is a defender of, or a spokesperson for, Thames Water. I am happy for him to retract his comment.

[Charlie Maynard]

I said that she is the chair of Water UK, which is the trade body for water companies, so I think that follows.

[Emma Hardy]

I am pleased by what I believe I have heard: that no reference was made to Ruth Kelly with regard to Thames Water; instead, the comment was solely about her representing Water UK.

Further to my point about people who are not here and unable to defend themselves, as a trade unionist I want to talk about the people who work for water companies, including those who work for Thames Water and go out to fix the broken pipes, clean up sewage and deal with the sewage overspills. I have had reports from some unions that those people often face abuse for doing so. They are often on the frontline facing people angry with the company. I would like to say—and I hope we have unity on this point—that the people going out, cleaning up the mess and dealing with the difficulties are not responsible. They are not Thames Water; they are people who work for it. I thank them for the work that they do in incredibly difficult circumstances.

[Luke Taylor]

I think we would all agree on that. It was interesting to see, in the BBC documentary, that the people who work at Thames Water clearly wanted to do a good job. They wanted to improve things for residents—their neighbours, family and friends—but just did not have the chance to do so because of the structure of the company and the difficulties that it is in. This debate is about the need to help not only the customers—our residents—but the workers who want to be doing so much better and find it so dispiriting to be part of that failing organisation.

[Emma Hardy]

I completely agree. They are trying to do a good job. I add that it is a good industry to work in; the people in it have long careers and, I might add, excellent trade union representation. I am not sure that I will have complete support from everyone in the room on that point—just when I was doing so well—but I want to echo that it is not those people’s responsibility.

My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who is no longer in his place, was right to say that customers and the environment should be at the heart of reforms. As I mentioned, we changed the articles of association to put customers on to the boards. My hon. Friend is always incredibly caring about his residents, so I wanted to mention to him and to all the other hon. Members that we are holding the water companies to account to end water poverty by 2030. We are just about to consult—we have to wait for purdah—on changing the rules around WaterSure to extend eligibility for it.

I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) enjoyed her three years in Yorkshire. It is a fine and wonderful part of the country, and she is always welcome to come back. She is an incredible champion for her community. I am sure that she will never need my assistance in standing up for that community, but I am always happy to give it if she does.

My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon North (Will Stone) highlighted the role that MPs can play. He showed what a good choice was made in the last election to send him here as a representative for his community. I thank him for his support for the Water (Special Measures) Act and for the further work that we are doing on regulators.

The hon. Members for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) talked about the Teddington abstraction scheme. Without going into loads of detail, there will be a consultation, and they will be able to feed in the concerns of their residents and environmental concerns. But if either of the hon. Members feel that their concerns, or those of their residents, are not being listened to, I am happy to make arrangements for us to sit and have a longer conversation about that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) mentioned a family of four struggling with their water bill. I again highlight WaterSure. We are looking to expand eligibility for it, but at the moment, if a family has three or more children under the age of 18 living at the property and they claim child benefit, they will be eligible for WaterSure, so I urge my hon. Friend to pass that information on to his constituents. I thank him for his support for the Water (Special Measures) Act, the commission and our desire to introduce change.

Before turning to Thames Water, I want to emphasise that as a Government we recognise that the water sector is facing many challenges, and we have set out ambitious plans to tackle those challenges head-on, but it is important also to emphasise that resolving them will require long-term and transformative change. One thing mentioned here—I think by the loyal Opposition—is that there is no silver bullet or quick fix for some of the problems that we face.

We recently took the Water (Special Measures) Act through Parliament; it was amended in the other place. It will drive meaningful improvements in the performance and culture of the water industry and act as a first step in enabling wider and transformative change across the water sector. The Act delivers on the Government’s manifesto commitments by blocking bonuses for executives who pollute our waterways, enabling the bringing of criminal charges against persistent lawbreakers, enabling automatic and severe fines for wrongdoing, and ensuring monitoring of every sewage outlet.

In October we launched, in collaboration with the Welsh Government, an independent commission on the water sector regulatory system. This is the largest review of the water industry since privatisation. The commission will report in the middle of this year and make recommendations on how to tackle systemic issues in the water sector to help restore our rivers, lakes and seas to good health, meet the challenges of the future and contribute to economic growth. Those recommendations will form the basis of further legislation to attract long-term investment and clean up our waters for good.

I now turn to Thames Water specifically before moving on to the sector as a whole. I will say as much as I am able to about Thames Water, bearing in mind that it is going through a confidential process. I completely understand what has been said. Let me say at the beginning that I am not here as the hon. Member for Thames Water, and I am not here to defend the actions of Thames Water. I want to reassure and, I hope, send a message to the general public that we are monitoring the situation and the company remains stable. In the event of special administration, the taps will still function and the sewage will still be taken—I want that message to be heard by the general public—so there is no need for alarm. The people working for the company will continue to be paid in the event of special administration. As a responsible Government, we are preparing for every eventuality. However, at the moment the company remains stable.

I think it is incorrect to say that we are “resisting” special administration. That would be a total mischaracterisation of what special administration is and the process of entering the special administration regime. It is not that we are resisting anything. A special administration order is a well-established mechanism to ensure that the company continues to operate and that customers continue to receive their water and wastewater services, so customers need not be concerned about any disruption to their water supply or wastewater services because of the financial position of their water company. The provision of water and wastewater services will continue.

Special administration is the ultimate enforcement tool in the regulatory toolkit, and as such, the bar is set high. The law is clear—this obviously links to insolvency legislation—and states that special administration can be initiated only if the company becomes insolvent, can no longer fulfil its statutory duties or seriously breaches an enforcement order. Only in that scenario does the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or Ofwat—crucially, with the consent of the Secretary of State—have the power to request the court to place a company in a special administration regime. If that situation arises, the court must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the water company in question is insolvent, can no longer seriously fulfil its primary statutory duties, or has seriously breached an enforcement order. It will then make a special administration order, appointing a special administrator.

That is a hypothetical situation. It is not, I stress, the situation that we are talking about now, but let us say that somebody said, “We want to put this company into special administration”; the decision then would be made by the court, and the court would need to be satisfied that there is the evidence to put that company into special administration.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

I thank the Minister for her attention to this situation, but I have to ask on behalf of my constituents, how much more does Thames Water have to fail before we decide that it is no longer fit to operate? The level of failure is so high that, although I appreciate what the Minister says about following the letter of the law, people simply will not understand.

[Emma Hardy]

I want to stress that although that is the legal process for entering special administration, that does not mean for one second that we are satisfied with the performance of the company as a whole. But there is a wealth of difference between the court-sanctioned process of going into special administration and the Government taking action. There are many things on which we want to take action. In fact, the whole purpose of the commission is to look at the way in which companies are set up and how we got into this position in the first place. It might interest the Opposition that some of the rules and regulations around Ofwat were relaxed in 2014—under the coalition Government.

It is not as though we are completely satisfied with everything, and that is why we are not doing SA. What I am saying is that SA is an ultimate enforcement tool; it is a serious step to take and it is sanctioned by the courts, but that does not mean that we are not doing anything else in between. We are taking a lot of other actions, but I wanted to address the specific point around why we are not pushing the company into special administration.

[Charlie Maynard]

I want to play back what the Minster just said. It is up to either Ofwat or the Secretary of State to apply to the court to put the company into special administration. As the Minister wrote to me last July or September, one of those conditions is whether the company is unable, or likely to be unable, to pay its debts. Given that the company has come out and said that it has only £39 million, with £19.5 billion of debt, and it is going to run out of money by 24 March, I think that we have passed that benchmark pretty clearly. The idea that we have not is simply not true. It is therefore up to Ofwat or the Secretary of State, who continues to decline—maybe that is a better word than resist—to ask the court to consider.

[Emma Hardy]

With respect, I think that we have different interpretations of the truth. We are saying that the company can enter SA if it is insolvent. Thames Water is not at the point of insolvency. My message to the public and to people working in the company is that the company remains stable at the moment; however, as a responsible Government, we are preparing for every eventuality.

I want to talk about broader commitments to financial stability and the independent commission. For me, this debate highlights how important it is to address the financial resilience of the water sector. We are talking specifically about Thames Water, but that does not mean that everything else is a bed of roses. Some historical decisions made by companies on debt levels have left them badly financially exposed. Those decisions often coincided with moves towards more complex ownership structures and the involvement of firms with shorter-term horizons.

We recognise that the Government have an important role to play in setting a regulatory framework that encourages a stable water sector. In hindsight, many might question the 2014 changes to make Ofwat a lighter-touch regulator. The Independent Water Commission is exploring how the Government could provide the regulatory structure that most people in the Chamber recognise that we need. The call for evidence is currently live, seeking views from stakeholders on improvements that could be made to economic regulation across a number of areas. As always, we welcome contributions from everybody across the House. The call for evidence closes on 23 April, and I encourage all interested parties to respond to the commission’s questions on these topics via DEFRA’s online consultation tool, Citizen Space.

I conclude by reiterating that both the Government and Ofwat are carefully monitoring the situation with Thames Water.

[John Lamont]

I want to pick up on my point about Scotland. Some Members have been advocating for nationalisation. Does the Minister have any thoughts on that, and have the current Government looked at what is happening in Scotland? Scottish Water, by many standards, is performing even less well than Thames Water. But Scottish Water is state-owned. Its chief executive is paid £290,000. The model in Scotland is not something that I would encourage the Minister to look at—I am not saying that she is—but I would be keen to have her reflections.

[Emma Hardy]

Water is devolved, and I completely respect the autonomy of the Scottish Parliament to make those decisions. The Government have been clear that we are not looking at nationalisation, simply because of the cost, the time it would take and the legal complications. My focus is quite simply on what I can do to improve the situation that we currently face. There is a lot of consensus around looking at regulation and how effective, or not, it is at the moment, and what can be changed. That is where I have put all my focus. Nationalisation was ruled out of the Independent Water Commission; however, all other forms of ownership are allowed within the terms of reference.

It is for the companies to resolve their financial resilience issues within the context of their licence and broader statutory obligations. However, I must be clear: the Government are prepared for all scenarios across our regulated industries, as any responsible Government would be. This new Government are committed to turning around the water sector—I refer back to my 10 reasons for hope before Easter—which will be achieved through practical measures to clean up illegal sewage dumping and attracting major private sector investment to upgrade infrastructure while prioritising the interests, as we have mentioned, of customers and our beautiful environment.

Draft Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Ms Hobhouse.

The draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 25 February, implement the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023. For precision-bred plants in England, they provide the practical and technical details to implement a new, science-based and proportionate regulatory system for precision-bred plants as set out in the Act.

The territorial application of the draft regulations is England only, and they cover the environmental release and marketing of precision-bred plants, as well as their use in food and feed in England. That includes a process administered by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to confirm that plants are precision-bred and not genetically modified before they can be marketed. Also established is a food and feed marketing authorisation process administered by the Food Standards Agency, which allows products to be placed safely on the market. The regulations also outline details for public registers and enforcement. Today, by passing this secondary legislation, we have the opportunity to transform and modernise our food system to make it fit for the future.

The 21st-century agricultural system faces significant challenges. It must provide enough food to meet the growing demand while becoming more sustainable. It must also survive the threat to productivity posed by climate change. Food security is national security. To help us achieve that, we need innovation in fundamental sectors such as plant breeding. Precision breeding would be transformative for the sector, enabling innovative products to be commercialised in years instead of decades—and we do not have decades.

Through precision breeding, crops can be developed that are more resilient to climate change, resistant to pests and diseases and beneficial to the environment. In turn, that will increase food production, reduce the need for pesticides and fertilisers, lower emissions and reduce costs for farmers. However, to capture those benefits, we need a regulatory framework with a sound science base that encourages innovation. The scientific consensus across key advisory committees and institutes is that precision-bred organisms pose no greater risk to human health or the environment than traditionally bred organisms. The existing legislation carries a significant burden, adding a stifling 74% to the cost of marketing for businesses. That deters investment and limits the companies that can bring products to market and the traits that we can benefit from.

Countries that have kept pace with the science and introduced regulatory reform have seen significant investment. The Americas have attracted over 80% of venture capital investment in the sector, while only 5% comes to Europe. It is paramount that we act now to change that. Through these regulations, we are establishing an approach that is more proportionate to the level of risk. Based on the scientific advice, we are treating precision-bred organisms more like their traditionally bred counterparts. By capitalising on the UK’s existing strengths and reputation for scientific excellence, we have the potential to be a leader in this growing sector internationally. The new regulatory framework will place us at the forefront across Europe and allow us to attract innovators to start and grow their businesses here.

We have worked with industry from the outset. Industry are clear on the opportunities that precision breeding presents and confident in the policy direction we are taking. Exciting research is already taking place in anticipation of the new regulatory framework, with the potential for some products to be on the market in the next few years. Tropic, an SME based in Norwich, has developed a non-browning banana that can reduce food waste and improve farm gate revenues by as much as 50%. Another product close to market is Simplot’s precision-bred strawberry, which would make one of Britain’s favourite fruits available to purchase beyond the summer months—lovely.

We recognise that concerns have been raised in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report, most notably around traceability and labelling, the impact on the organic sector, the UK internal market and trade with the EU. We agree that those issues are important and our work to understand and mitigate implications is ongoing. For example, we are continuing our engagement with devolved Governments and with the relevant sectors, such as the organic industry. We are also exploring ways to further improve transparency and the provision of information about precision-bred plant varieties.

We believe that we have struck the right balance, with an enabling regulatory framework that is proportionate and evidence-based while providing measures for transparency and regulatory oversight. This Government are pro-science and pro-innovation, and we are confident that the provisions in this secondary legislation will translate the benefits of precision breeding into reality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the most loyal Opposition for their support with this SI, and I thank all hon. Members who have spoken. It is incredibly important that we make clear the distinction between genetic modification and what we are talking about here, and that we note how different the two things are. I welcome the Opposition’s support with that clarification.

I will take a moment to reflect on the importance of implementing this legislation. Without it, the potential of precision breeding cannot be realised. The existing legislation carries a significant burden, limiting which companies can bring products to market and which crop species’ traits we can benefit from. The overwhelming scientific advice is that it is not proportionate to apply existing legislation to plants produced by modern biotechnology when those plants could have resulted—this is the key point that the hon. Member for Epping Forest made—from traditional breeding processes. These regulations provide a science-based approach and are proportionate.

I will cover some of the points that have been raised. On animals and birds, I recognise the professional view and real feelings of the hon. Member for Epping Forest, and he is keen to know more about the Government’s plans for implementing the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 for animals. While we are continuing the research that supports policy development of the animal welfare declaration, no decision has yet been taken on introducing legislation to implement the 2023 Act in relation to precision-bred animals. I have no further information about that, because only plants are in scope of this SI.

[Dr Hudson]

I note that no decision has been taken on animals, but I asked about animals and birds. We have the pressing situation of avian influenza, and technology is under development in this country to breed birds that are resistant to that horrific disease. Can I press the Minister to make the case to DEFRA for enabling precision breeding of animals and birds forthwith? Will she write to the Committee with an update on when DEFRA will bring forward that SI?

[Emma Hardy]

I am happy to clarify that I was talking about animals and birds. I can attempt to provide further information, but without wanting to appear deliberately vague, no decision has been taken. However, if and when one is, I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman knows.

[Dr Hudson]

Will the Minister give way on one final point?

[Emma Hardy]

Only because it is the hon. Gentleman.

[Dr Hudson]

Can the decision be made quickly?

[Emma Hardy]

I will take that point back to the Farming Minister.

As for the assurance on risk, the advice is consistent across scientific sources and is supported by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment and the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, as well as institutions such as the Royal Society and the European Food Safety Authority. These principles also underpin regulatory approaches adopted abroad, where England is now aligned with countries such as Canada, Japan and Argentina. I reassure hon. Members that the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes advised that there is no evidence that precision-bred organisms are intrinsically more hazardous than traditionally bred organisms. I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest: we are not talking about the same things.

Devolved Governments were also mentioned. We recognise that there are concerns about divergence in the UK, and that is why we continue to engage regularly with the devolved Governments. The Farming Minister recently sent letters to his counterparts in the devolved Governments to invite them to discuss these matters further. We recognise the importance of working closely with the devolved nations on these issues and we look forward to those meetings.

On the EU position, which the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire mentioned, although the final legislation has not yet been agreed among EU legislators, the European Commission has published a proposal for the regulation of plants by new genomic techniques. We are monitoring the EU’s position closely and note the recent progress made by the European Council on the draft NGT proposal. The proposal is similar in aim to the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, but it will take some time before new legislation is implemented in the EU. However, we do not have time to wait.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire made the point about the danger of doing research in this country and it being used by other countries. I take his point, but is there not an opportunity to use this technology in developing countries and provide support in relation to famine?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, which was thoughtful, as always, and demonstrated our care for other countries around the world. We have talked about resistance to pests and changes owing to climate change, and this is generally a good and innovative technology that can be used to benefit many people. As I said, although the EU seems to be moving in this area, we are diverging and we do not have time to wait.

[Dr Murrison]

Will the Minister give way?

[Emma Hardy]

I will try to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question and then he is welcome to intervene. A report by the Breakthrough Institute and Alliance for Science estimates that the EU’s current regulations on gene editing could result in an annual economic opportunity cost of $182 billion to $356 billion for the EU. That is why we want to act now to place English scientists and breeders at the forefront across Europe to make the most of opportunities presented by precision-breeding technologies.

[Dr Murrison]

The Minister has pretty much answered the question I was going to put to her, which was: what assessment has she made of the competitive advantage? I am trying to be helpful to the Government. I know that they say they want lots of growth, and this is an opportunity to get growth, is it not? But to get growth we need competitive advantage, not just with the States, but with the EU. So my question really is: how much does she think we will be advantaged by the legislation? She has given me a figure, which sounds like a lot of money. I encourage her to go further and, as Europe becomes more and more restrictive in the technologies that it appears to be fighting scared of, the UK must be able to be rational in how it positions itself. In this area, that means being encouraging to our science base, of course, as well as our ability to exploit the findings of that research here in the UK.

[Emma Hardy]

As I said, there is an opportunity of $182 billion to $356 billion that we can perhaps not exploit—that is maybe the wrong word—but utilise, or take advantage of.

[Dr Hudson]

Capitalise.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman—we can capitalise on the opportunity, because we will be the first country that takes this through. As I have noted, the EU position seems to be moving, but we recognise that that will take some time, whereas I hope we will agree to this SI today. On that note, I thank everybody for their contributions and the Opposition for their support.

Question put and agreed to.

Water Bill

Emma Hardy Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 28th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) on bringing forward the Bill. He addressed it with the passion for which he is well known. He is also a person of culture, so he will not mind if I begin briefly by quoting a little bit of Philip Larkin:

If I were called in

To construct a religion

I should make use of water.

Going to church

Would entail a fording

To dry, different clothes;

My litany would employ

Images of sousing,

A furious devout drench,

And I should raise in the east

A glass of water

Where any-angled light

Would congregate endlessly.

Water throughout history has been a crucial part of what it means to be human. As we are all painfully aware from primary school science lessons, we are majority water. But culturally, water is incredibly important as well.

In my constituency, people may be aware of “Fog on the Tyne” and “The Waters of Tyne”. “The Blaydon Races” does not mention the River Tyne directly, but it crosses the river between verses. Tourism, as I mentioned in an intervention, is critical, and water plays a huge part in that, with the Gateshead quays and the Newcastle quayside on the opposite side of the river. When people come to the north-east, the river tends to be a place where they get their photo taken. Obviously, the quality of the photo depends somewhat on the quality of the waterways. In the past, Tyneside was known predominantly for coal and our coal industry. That had a huge impact on industry and our economy, but also on the river itself. Subsequent years have seen significant improvement, but I do not think anybody wants to go back to the days when the water in the River Tyne could not be drunk—I dare say that given some of the sewage that has been poured in from other contributing rivers, we might want to give that some very serious thought today.

These are the challenges that Governments face when they inherit a water system that can be described as little more than a national shame. The Conservative party presided over millions upon millions of tonnes of sewage being dumped into our water system by unscrupulous and unregulated water companies. Our water system is not an abstract concept. As was mentioned earlier, it is the water that our children swim in, or that we wish them not to swim in. It is the water we drink. It leads to the bills that our constituents pay. As has been implied, people do not necessarily feel that they are getting value for money from the current system.

Frankly, it is incredibly important that the public trust that institutions such as Parliament will protect one of life’s most basic necessities, which is why I was proud to support the Government’s Water (Special Measures) Act earlier this year. However, I believe there is a lot in my hon. and gallant Friend’s Bill that is worthy of discussion. As I will come to later, I am not convinced by some aspects of it, but he has certainly done us and the public a service by bringing forward this Bill today.

As mentioned earlier, there will barely be a constituency that is not touched by a river or a significant body of water, or that is not part of a coastal area. My constituency is bordered by not just the famous River Tyne, but the River Team and the River Derwent, and FloodMapper UK reports sewage discharges into both the Team and the Tyne. There are people up and down this country who have suffered because of these failures. Surfers Against Sewage have already been mentioned. Some 75% of UK rivers now pose a serious risk to health due to dangerous levels of sewage and human waste being dumped into them. I have learned today that we can use the word “turd” as parliamentary language, and no one should have to deal with turds, whether in a stream, a river, a sea or elsewhere. Madam Deputy Speaker, I promise that I will not add “turd” to my regular parliamentary lexicon, but it is important to use it in the context of this debate.

Surfers Against Sewage have noted that nearly 1,800 reports of sickness after bathing are linked to sewage discharge. There are many ways I would not wish to become unwell, but doing so by consuming sewage while swimming is perhaps the most unpleasant that one could face. This is a public health crisis, and people are getting sick. Surfers and swimmers are falling ill after taking to the water. As has been mentioned, parents are warning their children to keep away from local rivers. In 2025, it is utterly shameful that we have to warn people not to touch the water in one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

I have already referred to tourism, and many of us who travel to other countries will be familiar with the regular question, “Should I drink tap water or bottled water?” The idea that tourists may begin to question the quality of our waterways is a real concern, and it is one of the untold economic impacts that have not really been touched on when we have thought about water pollution.

Our constituents are paying the price, because their water bills have risen and risen while standards have unfortunately dropped. Standards have dropped in my own constituency, and I am glad that the Government are tackling the untold consequences of the water industry’s failures. In my constituency, a school had to close for weeks on end because of flooding, which had a hugely detrimental impact on the students. No child should lose out on a moment’s education because of flooding.

One of my constituents—I will not name him, because I have not sought his permission to do so—met me recently to show me the flood damage that is regularly done to his house. Whenever there is significant flooding, water flows through his house and into the back garden. That would be bad enough if he was not in his 80s, had not broken a finger when trying to lift a storm drain, and did not have a loved one with serious health problems who is sleeping downstairs, and for whom he is trying to care. These are the lived realities of our water system’s failures. They are not exclusively the failures of the water companies, but all too often the reaction of the water companies has not helped to resolve them.

Although normal working people have lost out, water company bosses have regrettably remained quids in, as has been mentioned already. Yes, billions have been paid to shareholders, but £41 million in bonuses, benefits and incentives has been paid to water executives since 2020. They have paid themselves while allowing the infrastructure of our water system to crumble. The pipes that deliver water to our homes, schools, hospitals and businesses are hundreds of years old and leaking, which is why I will come to something that I am very pleased the Government recently committed to in the Water (Special Measures) Act.

Enough is enough. The BBC announced only yesterday that water companies released raw sewage into England’s rivers and seas for a record 3.61 million hours last year because the legislation passed on to us by the previous Government was, I am afraid, ineffective. That is why, within days of being elected last July, the Government announced plans for the Water (Special Measures) Act in the King’s Speech, and introduced the Bill to this House on 4 September.

We have talked about the pace of change in this country, and I think everyone on the Government Benches would like us to be able to deliver things as fast as possible. People in the Gallery today and elsewhere in the country are restless for change, but bringing a Bill to this place in September really showed the seriousness of this Government. Bringing a Bill to this place is no small effort, as I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norwich South would agree, and therefore for the Government to introduce the Bill in what were the early weeks of this Parliament was, I think, very important.

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

The first week in September.

[Mark Ferguson]

The first week in September, as the Minister rightly notes. Despite the Conservatives voting against it at every stage, the Act passed.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) for securing this debate and giving these important issues the parliamentary attention that they deserve, and for meeting me in January, when he highlighted his concerns about the water industry and helpfully set out what he is trying to achieve with the Bill. For several years he has been a fearless environmental campaigner on this and many other issues.

I thank all campaigners and the public for their interest in the water industry. They are right to hold the Government’s feet to the fire and to expect so much better than they have had over the past 14 years. I make the promise to all of them that my duty, my job and what I serve every day in this place to do is to improve and clean up our rivers, lakes and seas and deliver a fair water system to everybody. Although there might be differences of opinion in how we get there, the motivation behind the actions that I take cannot be questioned.

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the Bill. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this important and wide-ranging debate and all hon. Members who have attended—I am not mentioning the ones who did not.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), the Chair of the Treasury Committee, made a really important contribution. She talked about the big nasties, those things that we knew when we came into Government would cost so much money, and the competition that water would potentially face from roads, rail, schools and so much more that needs repairing. She is right to point out that when we talk about shareholders, sometimes in the public imagination we imagine a rich businessman holding all the shares. Quite often, however, they are pension funds that would require compensation if we nationalised. If compensation was not provided, it would have an impact on people’s pensions and that would have a real-world impact.

[Carla Denyer]

Will the Minister give way?

[Emma Hardy]

I will try to come to everyone’s contributions in 15 minutes—I will try to get through as many as possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch is right to point out the appalling state of our rivers, the fact that not enough are in good chemical health and that there is much more to do. To reassure her on wet wipes—fatbergs were mentioned—work on legislation to ban them is ongoing.

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) that there is so much more that we need to do, and that the levels of pollution are, of course, unacceptable. I completely support what he says on natural flood prevention and hopefully, if time allows, I will go into that in a little bit more detail. He will be very pleased to know that only a few weeks ago we released some beavers into the wild to provide some of the natural flood prevention that we all need. The only thing I would say, though, is that we have some of the cleanest water in the world. In fact, the cleanliness of our drinking water in England is exceptionally high and the UK was ranked in the top eight countries in the world for drinking water safety in the 2024 Environmental Performance Index. I would like thank a very small regulator that does not often get much attention: the Drinking Water Inspectorate, which is responsible for keeping our water clean. It does an incredible job and I want to put my thanks on the record. I think the water we have in this country is incredibly clean, and I encourage everyone to feel completely safe as they continue to drink it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), in his usual gentlemanly way, praised my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norwich South for his service. I completely echo his remarks. I make the offer to all Members to support them in seeking accountability from water companies if they require it. That was something I discussed yesterday with water industry reps. If he wants to discuss further his request to look at environmental protections for the river, I am happy to take that up.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) highlights the anger the public feel about water pollution and the failures of the past years. He mentioned a number of primary schools—they came up frequently in the debate—and the appalling situation of many people becoming ill after going in the water. That is completely unacceptable. We take really seriously the impact that water, and entering water, has on public health. It is one of the many reasons why I am really pleased that Sir Chris Whitty is on the Independent Water Commission, giving his expert evidence.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) for her work on the Water (Special Measures) Bill Committee and for her tireless campaigning for her constituents who have been flooded over the years. She is right to be outraged by pollution levels.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) raised the awful outages and the poor distribution service his constituents faced. Vulnerable customers should always receive water—it should be delivered. He is quite right to point to the priority services register. One thing I would ask each hon. Member to do is to encourage the vulnerable people in their community to be on the priority services register, because they are entitled to support in the event of an outage. I am happy to follow that up with him afterwards, if he wants. I echo his thanks to the volunteers. I am sure that on Valentine’s day, as he was going around supporting his constituents, they felt incredibly loved by him as their new Member of Parliament.

My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) talked about the importance of effective regulation and long-term planning in investment. I thank her for her work on the Environmental Audit Committee.

I should just highlight—as a former primary school teacher, I cannot resist—some of the schools mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge who are involved in eco-societies: Daniel at the Langley Park School for Boys, Stewart Fleming primary, Balgowan primary, Churchfields primary, Clare House primary, Shortlands primary and St Mark’s primary. I commend their excellent work on those eco-clubs, and all those around the country. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) shared his ambition to seek solutions to the problems he faces. That is exactly what drives me too, and is exactly what we should be doing in the Chamber today: seeking solutions together for the problems we face. I thank him for his work supporting his constituents. He always has my support on that, although I have no doubt at all that he does not need much support from me in making his voice or his opinions heard, or in holding companies to account.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) quoted Philip Larkin. Without going too far into a history lesson, he might not know that Larkin spent many years working at Hull University, so he is celebrated in my constituency too. As a former teacher, I agree about the importance of education and the awful impact that flooding has on schools, and I share my hon. Friend’s restlessness for change.

Ofwat’s consultation on the bonus ban has come up, so I want to address it head-on. This week Ofwat published a statutory consultation, which sets out the details of the metrics that will trigger the ban and start the clock on implementation. It is right to say that Ofwat originally consulted only on banning on the basis of a category 1 or category 2 offence, and that it is looking at introducing a more holistic measure of environmental performance through the use of the EA’s environmental performance assessment. For those who are not aware, the EPA has a number of different metrics, including category 1 and category 2 offences for serious pollution incidents, but it also includes self-reporting, discharge permit compliance, the use and disposal of sludge, and, as has come up in today’s debate, outages. Those are all holistically put together into one rating. However, I and the public have been crystal clear about our expectation that bonuses should be banned for polluting water bosses, so should the consultation reveal that the proposed metrics need strengthening, Ofwat will review them ahead of final implementation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) said that much more needs to be done, and she is right to point out the impact of leaks on potholes and the wider damage. She always makes very thoughtful contributions, and I join her in celebrating the Government’s schemes to tackle tax avoidance. I was delighted that I got a chance to meet Sir Steve Redgrave the other day when he and rowers from Reading University came into DEFRA to hand me a letter and talk about the importance of having clean rivers in which to row.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) for supporting the Water (Special Measures) Act. I like the idea of rivers being part of our identity and shaping people—what a lovely message to leave us all with.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) thanked his campaign groups for their advocacy. He is right to say that this Bill is part of the Government’s plan for change, and of course we want to deliver more, but public ownership is not a magic bullet to fix this problem.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norwich South says that we can do things better, and we absolutely can. This Labour Government were elected on a manifesto for change, and with a plan for change. The Labour party was created to serve working people and the working class, and it our duty to do so. That is what drives us every single day. There is little trust in politics and in politicians as a force for good. The benefit of the doubt is never given to politicians; when people are asked about something, the assumption is always that we have an ulterior motive. The only way we can change the public’s opinion of politicians is by delivering change.

My hon. Friend talks about ideology driving us, but it is quite simple: I am entirely focused on doing everything I can to clean up our waterways. I care about the public being ripped off, I care about the people working for water companies on the frontline, who face abuse for the job they do, and I care desperately about the natural environment. This is what drives me, and it is what I will be judged on. My approach to decisions is always quite simple: it is about how I can deliver on my aims in the fairest and quickest way possible. Yes, we can do better, and we are doing better. I expect all Members to hold me to account on doing better every day.

On walking into DEFRA, I was told that a meeting would take place on my very first day. We met all the water companies, and we got them to change their articles of association and put customer representatives on their boards. In week four of the new Parliament, we introduced the Water (Special Measures) Bill, which was a down payment on future reforms—it was never intended to be the solution to all the problems. A couple of months later, we launched the Independent Water Commission to fundamentally reset the entire industry. Then we changed the rules on bathing water. Then we secured £104 billion of investment in the water industry. Then we did the call for evidence. I am now visiting all water boards up and down the country to hold them to account for the promises that they have made, and to make sure that they deliver on ending water poverty by 2030.

I will do more, because this is what I care about and the Government care about. It is about delivering change in this place. That is what we were elected to do. I want to make one thing clear, if nothing else: this Government are absolutely committed to improving the performance of the water sector.

I want to say a little more about the abuse that employees are facing. I have heard about this from the trade unions, and it matters a lot to me. Employees who are going down to fix sewage mains or deal with pollution incidents are not the ones responsible for the problem, yet they face a lot of abuse when they go out and do their job. I would hope that all of us, regardless of our opinion of water companies, ownership or models, would agree that abusing the people on the frontline who are trying to clean up the mess is unacceptable. The employees and trade unions who are talking to me about this have my full and complete support.

I have pretty much run out of time, but briefly, I often see criticism when we talk about the cost of nationalisation. People say, “You’re quoting this think-tank”—the Social Market Foundation—“and those figures are wrong.” One of the things I did when I came in was interrogate the figures on the cost of nationalisation. The £99 billion cost of nationalisation that the Government use is based on Ofwat’s regulatory capital value 2024 estimates. That does not include the Bazalgette tunnel, an asset which would be included in that figure.

I often get told that we are using different costs, so I wanted to explain that that is where we get the figures from. That is the regulated capital value of the assets we have, but that does not assume the ongoing costs. Assuming we would want to deliver PR24, we would be talking about £104 billion of investment over the next five years, plus the cost of acquiring assets. I want to be really clear about the figures I was using.

I will come back to agricultural pollution, because I know the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) cares a lot about it. Agriculture and rural land management accounts for around 70% of land use. It is one of the greatest sources of water pollution in England, affecting 45% of our water bodies. The levels of pollution are unacceptable. That is why cleaning up our rivers, lakes and seas is a priority of this Government.

We are working with farmers to reduce pollution, which is key to delivering against this priority. We have committed to a rapid review of the environment and improvement plan, which will set out how DEFRA will deliver these legally binding targets. The Government will develop a new statutory plan to protect and restore our national environment with delivery plans to meet each of our ambitious environmental targets, which include cleaning up the waterways. We are taking action to tackle agriculture pollution and deliver the Environment Act 2021 through a suite of proportionate and effective regulations, advice and incentives.

To conclude, the call for evidence for the Water Commission is now live, so if anyone in this House wanted to assemble a group of citizens to come together in their local communities to discuss this and put their evidence forward, I would entirely welcome that. This Government will not stop until we achieve what we promised in our manifesto, which was to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas. That is what drives me and motivates me, and that is what I will continue working on.

Veterinary Products in Waterways

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

It is, as always, a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) on securing the debate, and I especially congratulate her on her first Adjournment debate in the House. I am sure that it will be the first of many—and probably the first of many regarding water, so we might get used to seeing each other on such evenings.

Obviously, we cannot miss the opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on his birthday. I am sure that I speak for the entire House when I say that I hope he has had a wonderful day. An Adjournment debate would not be the same without him, so I thank him for joining us, even on his birthday.

I know that the Government have carried out monitoring in the Tiverton and Minehead area to deliver programmes such as updating the water framework directive status, natural capital ecosystems assessment and catchment sensitive farming. As hon. Members know, the quality of our rivers, lakes and seas is essential for supporting our ecosystems, providing clean water and producing our food. Our beautiful rivers, lakes, seas and beaches are a source of pride for our communities, and we want to restore them to that end.

I totally agree that we are a nation of pet lovers. Again, I have to mention my three wonderful cats— I never miss the opportunity to mention them—who are Meglatron, Lily and Serena. Serena was given that name because she is such a beautifully serene lady, and Meglatron because he is a crazy little boy we have running around the house all the time. The hon. Lady is quite right, and I am sure that the concerns about fleas and ticks are felt by many pet owners up and down the country.

On our wider neonics work, on 21 March—just four days ago—we released the national action plan on pesticides. It has three objectives: to encourage the take-up of integrated pest management; to establish a timeline and targets for the reduction of the use of pesticides; and to strengthen compliance, to ensure safety and better environmental outcomes. Can you believe, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the NAP, which we published just last Friday—we put out the written ministerial statement on Monday—had been waiting over a decade under the previous Government? We managed to get it out in eight months. I am quite proud of that.

On our wider work on neonics, before Christmas we made a written ministerial statement talking about how we wanted to ensure a complete ban in the use of the emergency authorisation. The hon. Lady will know that I declined this year’s emergency authorisation for the use of Cruiser pesticides. That demonstrates the Government’s commitment to tackling some of the concerns that are widely held.

The quality of our water is, of course, essential for supporting ecosystems, providing clean drinking water and producing our food. Maintaining healthy and clean water sources is vital to achieving the Government’s mission for sustainable economic growth, but the public are also concerned about chemicals used for the treatment and prevention of fleas and ticks for pets in UK waterways. The Government are committed to understanding the impacts of veterinary medicines entering our environment.

Speaking more widely about water quality, the flawed water system that the Government inherited is still discharging record levels of sewage into our rivers, lakes and seas. The situation is not just an environmental failure; it is also a public health crisis, demanding our immediate and decisive action to rectify decades of neglect and mismanagement. We need a systematic approach to tackling issues that impact the whole of the drainage and waste water systems, stopping the unnecessary pressure from rainwater and sewage misuse entering the system to the point at which it is discharged into the environment.

As mentioned, the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 gained Royal Assent on 24 February 2025, boosting the power of water sector regulators to tackle pollution. That major legislation delivers on this Government’s promise to clean up the water sector and is the most significant increase in enforcement powers for water industry regulators in a decade. The Act will give regulators new powers to take tougher and faster action to crack down on water companies damaging the environment and failing their customers. However, we do not just want to give that—oh no, we want to do so much more.

Further legislation aimed at fundamentally transforming how our entire water system operates will be guided by the findings of the Independent Water Commission, led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, which is currently conducting the largest review of the industry since privatisation. I also mention the wonderful start to the day I had today, because earlier this morning, at 9 o’clock, I met Sir Steve Redgrave and lots of young rowers from the University of Reading to discuss how we can improve our water quality for the rivers and lakes that we all love. It was a pleasure to have a cup of coffee with him very early this morning and talk about our shared ambition to clean up our rivers.

Having spoken about the importance of water quality, I will turn in detail to the topic of veterinary medicines in waterways. The Government recognise the presence of parasiticides—I nearly got away with that—in the wider environment as a significant concern, and we are actively gathering evidence on that complex, multifactorial issue. All veterinary medicines undergo a rigorous scientific assessment before approval. As the regulator for veterinary medicines, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate balances the benefits of veterinary medicine for animal health and welfare, as well as human health protection, against the associated risk, which obviously includes environmental risks. Medicines are only ever authorised if the benefit outweighs the risk. The VMD follows internationally recognised guidelines for assessing the environmental risks of veterinary medicines for all animals, including pets.

Fleas and ticks can lead to, as mentioned, discomfort and distress in pets. Those parasites can host microbes that cause disease in pets and potentially in pet owners who encounter the fleas and ticks. Topical flea treatments play a crucial role in protecting both animal and human health from fleas, ticks and disease. It is therefore essential that we take a balanced approach to the benefits of such treatments and their potential environmental impact when considering the issue.

While there is evidence of the presence of fipronil and imidacloprid in fresh waters, it is well established that, as insecticides, these substances are inherently toxic to invertebrates and we do not understand the effects that current levels are having at a population and ecosystem level. We are, however, committed to understanding the potential impacts of veterinary medicines entering the environment. The VMD has led on the formation of a cross-Government group on pharmaceuticals in the environment to develop a co-ordinated strategy to reduce the impact of the substances in the environment. The group includes key governmental bodies, including the Environment Agency, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the Health and Safety Executive and representatives from the devolved Governments. While the VMD is prioritising the development of an evidence base, working to resolve the issue will require involvement by all key stakeholders, including the pharmaceutical industry and veterinary professionals.

The work does not come without challenge and stakeholders remain divided on the way forward. Some advocate for the benefits of year-round parasiticide use for humans and animal health, others emphasise the need for more cautious use, while some push for a complete ban. Any decision to limit use must be carefully weighed against the benefits to ensure a balanced approach, as restrictions could impact animal welfare, animal health and even public health. Also, there is still a critical evidence gap in understanding the full impact of those options on both animal and human health, as well as on the environment, and that must be explored further before any regulatory action is taken.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

rose—

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Emma Hardy]

I will give way to the hon. Lady on the Liberal Democrat Bench and then to my hon. Friend.

[Tessa Munt]

Could the Minister just clarify whether that group will consider the benefits of using natural remedies, or a combination of natural remedies, and of ensuring that people are fully aware of the benefits of that, and that that will be in some way quantified, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) mentioned during her speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

Yes, we are going to look at all the evidence on the available options. As I say, there is a difference of opinion over the best way forward; people have different views on that. It is my job, as we are a responsible Government, to look at all the evidence and try to find a balanced way forward, so that will be included as part of the evidence base.

[Jayne Kirkham]

Is there a rough timeline for that group to come back with a report?

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is always very dedicated to DEFRA-related issues, and it is always nice to see her here. I will check to see whether I can give her a more detailed decision on timing—if I cannot do so in this meeting, I will ensure that I let her know afterwards.

As I said, the VMD is developing the evidence base and has commissioned scientific research to investigate how these substances reach rivers and streams. It is working closely with stakeholders to collect data and address the issue. It is supporting calls for a review of the internationally agreed environmental risk assessment standards. The VMD and the Environment Agency are working closely together to understand the risks posed by these chemicals and to respond appropriately.

To further address this issue, the group on pharmaceuticals in the environment has developed a road map for reducing levels of two veterinary substances in UK surface waters. The priority for this road map is to raise awareness and improve pet owner education on risks and appropriate use—I know that point has come up here. Once finalised, that road map would be available to all stakeholders. As unresearched policies can fail badly, any changes we implement must be evidence based and measurable to achieve success.

This Government will not turn the other way or continue to allow our rivers, lakes and seas to be polluted. Through the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, the independent Water Commission, future legislation and many other actions, we are demonstrating our commitment to a comprehensive reset of the water industry and will drive long-term transformative change. We remain dedicated to addressing the environmental impact of veterinary medicines, and will continue working with relevant stakeholders to find solutions that protect both animal health and the environment. I again congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead on securing the debate. The public want clean water and we are determined to deliver it.

Question put and agreed to.

UK Pesticides National Action Plan

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Written Statements

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

On 21 March the Government published the UK pesticides national action plan (NAP), setting out how we will reduce the environmental risk of pesticides by 10% over the next five years.

This plan—the first to be published in a decade—sets out a future of more sustainable pesticide use, which protects the environment and human health, and boosts food security for the long term.

The NAP sets out how all four UK Governments will support farmers, growers and other land managers to increase their use of sustainable farming practices to reduce the potential harm from pesticides by 10% by 2030, while controlling pests and pesticide resistance effectively.

Pesticide resistance, climate change and invasive species pose significant challenges to our food security. Embracing a future with a nature-friendly approach to pest management means a better deal for our food producers. Sustainable pesticide use supports healthier ecosystems in which vital pollinators, such as bees, are allowed to flourish, and crop health and food production are boosted for the long term.

This NAP will support voluntary moves by farmers towards more sustainable pest management through increased use of integrated pest management (IPM)—a sustainable and holistic approach to pest, weed and disease management, which can benefit farm businesses as well as the environment. By using nature-based solutions and alternative techniques, farmers can ensure that pesticide use is targeted and optimised, cutting down on input costs and tackling pesticide resistance to support long-term profitability and productivity.

The UK is a world leader in agrifood research and development. The actions in the NAP will build on this strong foundation and support continued growth in the sector, including by supporting manufacturers to bring more bio-pesticides to market and reducing barriers to innovation and precision application technology, such as drones.

Finally, the NAP outlines how we will ensure that regulations are followed by targeting enforcement efforts where they are needed most, through training, guidance and enhanced inspections and compliance.

The publication of the NAP follows wider Government action on pesticides. We have already committed to taking decisive action to protect bees and other pollinators by ending the use of three harmful neonicotinoids—clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam—in England. The launch of the NAP presents another step in promoting the sustainable use of pesticides and protecting food security for the future.

The plan has been published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the devolved Governments. The full UK pesticides national action plan can be found at:

www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-pesticides-national-action-plan-2025

[HCWS542]

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

4. What steps his Department is taking to improve flood defences in Hartlepool.

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

After 14 years, the Conservatives left our flood defence assets in the worst condition on record. That is why this Government are investing a record £2.65 billion over two years to improve flood resilience. We will build, maintain and repair flood defences to better protect 52,000 properties by March 2026.

[Mr Brash]

The flood defences in and around Greatham creek in my constituency of Hartlepool date back to the 19th century and are coming to the end of their usable life. I am campaigning to secure the funding we need to realise the Environment Agency’s ambitious multimillion-pound plan to upgrade these defences and create a new habitat that extends biodiversity in that area. Will the Minister commit to delivering that funding for Hartlepool?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue and for his recent letter. He is right to be angry about the poor state of his flood defences, and I am sure his constituents value him as a local champion, raising that in the Chamber. To rebuild after Conservative failure, we have had to urgently move £36 million into maintenance funding this year. As I have mentioned, the projects to receive funding in the next financial year are being agreed and will be announced shortly.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Under the previous Government there was, prior to 2019, a strategy from Westminster to address flooding and coastal erosion across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. All the regions were able to benefit from that, including my constituency of Strangford, where coastal erosion is a massive thing, taking away some of the major roads and thoroughfares. Will the Minister consider renewing that strategy and starting it again, looking at all of the United Kingdom as one job lot? That would thereby help us all to get the benefit in addressing coastal erosion and the flooding that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) referred to.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Member for raising his concerns about coastal erosion, and he is right. It is a huge problem, and with climate change it is only set to get worse. I completely recognise how it is impacting coastal communities. His suggestion to bring together the different devolved Governments to discuss this issue is really interesting, so let me take that away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

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

[Emma Hardy]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Wera Hobhouse, who I know is now anxious.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Like people in Hartlepool, we in Bath recognise that the Conservative Government left our flood defences in a poor state, and we welcome the extra funding that the Bath flood defence scheme has received. However, we worry that it has come too late in a lot of cases. Is there a timeline for when my Bath constituents will actually see improvements?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue. As I said, we are delivering a record £2.65 billon investment in building, maintaining and upgrading flood defences, and that money will be spent over the next two years. We will shortly announce some of the projects that are going ahead in the next financial year, and next year we will announce even more. There will be an announcement this year for the next financial year, and an announcement next year for the second half of the two-year record investment. That shows out commitment to building, maintaining and improving flood defences up and down our country.

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

6. What steps he is taking to protect flood-prone communities in Cumbria.

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

As I may have already mentioned, we are putting in a record £2.65 billion investment to build, maintain and improve flood defences up and down the country, which shows this Government’s commitment to making sure that our communities and our farmland are protected from flooding.

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

I thank the Minister for her answer. Communities in Cumbria have seen many devastating floods over the last two decades, but flood action groups in Keswick have worked hard with United Utilities to develop a scheme that uses Thirlmere reservoir as a storm water store, helping to prevent flooding in the town. All agree that more could be done. Although I applaud their work, I note that there is no statutory requirement for water companies to use their assets as flood defences. Will the Minister look at how water companies’ assets can be used to prevent flooding across the country?

[Emma Hardy]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

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

[Emma Hardy]

That all started so well—we nearly managed to get through the question with me agreeing with the hon. Gentleman. He is quite right about this issue, which he has mentioned before. I am in complete agreement with him about the impact of flooding on mental health, and I know that we all take it seriously. We are investing £500,000 in mental health charities to support rural communities, but I completely recognise the devastation that flooding causes, and I am always happy to work with Members from across the House on how we can support people’s mental health.

[Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)]

8. If he will take steps to implement the provisions of the Environment Act 2021 on deforestation due diligence.

--- Later in debate ---

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

12. What steps he has taken to help protect communities that are vulnerable to flooding.

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

Repairing and rebuilding our flood defences is a priority for this Labour Government, and we are investing at a record level to improve flood resilience, better protecting 52,000 properties by this time next year.

[Patrick Hurley]

The Environment Agency allocates its budgets to carry out work on flood defences on the basis of a funding formula, but that formula does not give sufficient weight to agricultural land. Will the Minister undertake a review of the formula, so that agricultural land gets the flood defences it needs?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. I completely agree that the previous flooding formula did not work for rural communities, which is exactly why we are consulting to change it. The consultation will be announced shortly, and I encourage him and every Member across the House to get involved in shaping the formula, so we can make sure it delivers the right outcomes for everybody up and down our country.

[Jo Platt]

First, I thank the Minister for visiting Lilford in Leigh after the devastating new year’s day flooding. We had a public meeting on Saturday, and three months after those floods, residents are still struggling to get any real progress from their insurance companies, while others face extortionate premiums and excess fees. What discussions is the Minister having with the insurance industry on improving how they support residents?

[Emma Hardy]

It was a pleasure to see my hon. Friend and see how tirelessly she was championing and supporting her local constituents after such a devastating flood. Concerns around flood insurance have been raised, so the floods resilience taskforce is setting up an insurance sub-group, through which some of its members will deep-dive into the challenges and opportunities for improvement on flood defences. If she has any further evidence that she would like me to look at, it would be very helpful to receive it.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

11. What discussions he has had with Thames Water on its financial viability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)]

My constituents in Burghfield Bridge have suffered for years with the devastating effects of flooding, and are rightly frustrated that nothing is being done. Will the Minister meet me to discuss flood resilience and better join-up of local agencies in Burghfield Bridge and across my constituency?

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

I thank my hon. Friend for raising concerns around flooding; we have today heard about those concerns up and down the country. I would, of course, be happy to meet her.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

T5. After many years of rising costs for Scottish pubs, they now face being unfairly caught up in the double jeopardy of extended producer responsibility, as bottles going to pubs are being classed as household waste by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, even though almost no glass bottles delivered to pubs end up in household waste. Given the extremely tight margins on producing bottled beer, the situation threatens to cause serious harm to this part of the industry. Will the Minister consider an EPR exemption for pubs and other hospitality venues, or some kind of easement to help the situation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)]

We are blessed to be nestled between the beautiful River Adur and the sea in my constituency, but that leaves us prone to flooding. Last year, my constituents in Shoreham found their homes and businesses flooded. I welcome the Government’s £2.65 billion for flood defences and must stress the importance of East Worthing and Shoreham getting its fair share of that funding. Will the Minister confirm when the Government will announce funding allocations for local flood defence projects?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. We are taking decisive action to halt the steady decline in the condition of flood defences that we saw under the previous Government, including shifting an extra £108 million into maintenance. We will announce further projects in due course.

[Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)]

I recently visited New Sheepfold Farm in Ingleby Greenhow to see the great work that the Day family are doing to diversify their farm, help nature recovery and improve enjoyment of our rural area. They did this with the help of the North York Moors National Park Authority and the farming and protected landscape scheme, which I am glad the Government have extended for a further year. Does the Minister agree with me about the importance of family farms, such as that of the Days, in landscapes such as the dales and the moors, and will he ensure that they remain at the forefront of Ministers’ minds?

Bathing Water Regulations 2013: Government Response to Consultation

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Written Statements

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

In November last year, the Government, jointly with the Welsh Government, announced the consultation on reforms to the Bathing Water Regulations 2013, in the first shake-up to our bathing waters since the regulations were introduced. These reforms include removing strict automatic de-designation, amending the designation process to include feasibility of improvement as a criterion for designation, and moving the current fixed dates of the monitored bathing season into guidance.

The Government received clear public support for their proposed three reforms, nine technical amendments, and two wider reforms. These reforms align with the recommendations made in the Office for Environmental Protection’s report on the implementation of the Bathing Water Regulations 2013. We now intend to proceed with their implementation. We will also begin robust research and development on the wider reforms to see how they can best be implemented in future. DEFRA will work closely with the Environment Agency to ensure the new measures are implemented effectively and innovatively.

We are also reopening the bathing water application window in 2025. From May, communities in England can apply for new bathing waters, meaning that some additional sites may be designated ahead of the 2026 season. Prospective sites will be assessed against the Government’s newly reformed standards, set to become law later this year. Further details of the application process will be published in guidance at the start of the 2025 bathing season.

Updating bathing water regulations is part of the wider action the Government are taking to fix our water system. To meet the scale of the challenge, and deliver transformational change, the Government last year launched an independent commission into the water sector to review its regulatory system. On 27 February, the commission launched a wide-ranging call for evidence, which is open for views from all interested parties until 23 April. The commission is focused on recommendations to strengthen the water sector and the regulatory framework, whereas the planned reforms to the Bathing Water Regulations 2013 are focused on specific improvements to the operation and management of the bathing water system, so that more people have the opportunity to experience the benefits of our beautiful waters.

[HCWS516]

River Wandle Pollution

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) for bringing forward this debate about this beautiful-sounding river. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) and for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for contributing to this important debate, as well as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) and I could of course never forget the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) .

When we have any debate on water and water quality, there is so much interest from constituents, organisations and from hon. Members. I wholeheartedly share the upset and outrage of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington over the diesel spill. He is absolutely right to feel upset about it. This is one of England’s most beautiful chalk streams. It is a fast-moving river passing through sites of natural importance as well as sites of urban development. I wholeheartedly agree that this was an appalling thing to happen to the river.

It is really important to understand why it happened and what we can do to prevent it from happening again. I understand that the situation along the river continues to improve, with environmental impacts steadily reducing, but I want to be absolutely clear that we will not let any organisation get away with illegal activity, and where breaches are found, the EA will not hesitate to hold companies to account or work with partners as needed. DEFRA works closely with the Environment Agency to ensure it is equipped to carry out its functions effectively and deliver for the public and the environment, with Environment Agency officials at every level to provide constructive challenge and support on Environment Agency performance and delivery.

I have a timeline of exactly what happened on the day. One of the questions was about when people were made aware. On Tuesday 18 February at 8.19 am, London Fire Brigade was notified and arrived on the scene. At 8.32 am, the Environment Agency received a report from the London Fire Brigade of a diesel oil spill from a bus depot storage tank. Nine minutes later, at 8.41 am, the EA duty officer initiated a response and a decision to deploy to the site. At 10 am, the first Environment Agency officer was on the site, and further EA officers were on the site at 12 noon. I thank the Environment Agency: it was made aware of it at 8.32 am, and by 10 am, it had people at the river carrying out an investigation. It has done an exceptionally good job at working at pace.

I understand that, at 6.19 pm, the Environment Agency sent its first email to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington with information about the incident and the actions that it took. Between 19 February and 26 February, the Environment Agency’s response was ongoing; that included regular on-site monitoring, assessment of the clean-up and the environmental impacts, and ongoing briefings and liaison with partner organisations. It has specialist contractors working on the remediation efforts, and I understand that it updated the hon. Member at 9.45 am on 19 February and that another meeting was requested on 21 February.

The incident response concluded on Wednesday 26 February, when the Environment Agency sent its final updates to partners. It is now in the investigation phase, having moved out of the emergency response phase. It has acted at speed and with integrity, and it has done an incredible job. Its enforcement options range from warnings to prosecution or an enforcement undertaking. That is a civil sanction whereby the offender proposes steps to remediate the issue. The punishment depends on the assessment.

I totally agree on the polluter pays principle. The Environment Agency can recover costs from emergency incidents under section 161 of the Water Resources Act 1991. All costs incurred by the Environment Agency through doing this enforcement work can be recovered. On the wider point on polluter pays, the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which got Royal Assent last week, included cost recovery not just for emergency responses, as already existed, but for water companies. I know that, in this case, it was not a water company that was responsible, but sewage pollution has been mentioned. Anywhere that the Environment Agency investigates sewage pollution, all costs can now be fully recovered from the water company.

A question was asked about what happens to the fine moneys. Ofwat are responsible for collecting fine money and, in some cases, that fine money is refunded to customers. In other cases, that fine money is available for environmental aspects. The ratio of how much is refunded to customers is a decision for Ofwat.

A point was made about the problems of run-off. Obviously, there is another one that has not come up in this debate but is also a concern—agricultural pollution as well as sewage pollution. All those things are being looked at under the Cunliffe review—we have only seven weeks left now for people to respond to the call for evidence. I hope people will look at the document and make their points. There is a 200-page call for evidence, but also a 20-page executive summary, so people can look at the summary. It is not just for Members of Parliament. If I may address those in the Public Gallery, it is for anybody to respond and give their opinion on how our water system should fundamentally work.

We are serious about this. We are taking action and looking at how we can increase polluter pays through the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, but there will be cost recovery because this is considered an emergency. In terms of what more can be said at the moment, we have to let the Environment Agency do its investigative work. When it comes to its conclusion it will determine what level or type of prosecution happens.

I want to reiterate that we agree that what happened with the River Wandle is deeply concerning and unacceptable. Again, I thank the Environment Agency for acting within an hour and a half of being informed and having people on the ground to carry out that investigative work. This Government will not turn the other way and continue to allow our rivers, lakes and seas to be polluted. Through the Water (Special Measures) Act, the Independent Water Commission, future legislation and many other actions, we are demonstrating our commitment to a comprehensive reset of the water industry. We intend to drive long-term transformative change through the entire water sector, and we have only just got started.

Question put and agreed to.

Bathing Water Regulations

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is always a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John.

I feel that we are having a little bit of a love-in this afternoon, which is always a nice way to start. Of course I will be more than happy to pass on the thanks from the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), to the team who have worked on this issue. I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing this really important debate. There is so much agreement in the room that I almost wonder whether we are still in the House of Commons. I will certainly try to cover most of the points that have been made.

Just to set the issue in context, we completely accept and believe that the water system at the moment is broken. That is why, when we first came into office, we changed the articles of association to put customers and their opinions into the water boards. It is why we are doubling the compensation for people who face water outages. It is why we have ringfenced money so that it cannot be diverted from infrastructure improvements and into bonuses. It is why we have the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which just came into force and got Royal Assent last week—because we know that the system as a whole is broken. It is also why, just last Thursday, I was in Manchester with Sir Jon Cunliffe, launching the call for evidence on water. I strongly urge every Member here to respond to that call for evidence. There is a huge, 200-page consultation document that goes with it but, just because we are kind, there is a 20-page executive summary as well, so please have a look at that, respond to the consultation and make some of these points there.

Bathing waters in and of themselves are not under the water commission. The reason for that is that I wanted to do something on bathing waters really quickly; I did not want it to get delayed by the water commission when we already knew some of the things that we wanted to look at. I will quickly go over some of the things that we are looking at changing. At the moment, the regulations are one size fits all. I would like to reassure people talking about the dates around bathing waters. Obviously, we will officially respond to the consultation; there will be an official Government response, but so far I have yet to see put forward any evidence that seems to indicate that there is a wish to shorten the bathing water window. In fact, most people are advocating to keep it the same or extend it, recognising that some people go swimming all year round.

This is the perfect point at which to mention my mum, who has decided to do open water swimming and swims all year round, and now has her own wetsuit. I think it is amazing that she has discovered open water swimming in her retirement—slightly crazy, but definitely amazing. As I said, we will obviously have a formal response to the consultation, but so far I have not seen anybody advocating shortening the bathing season. I wanted to make a point of mentioning that.

On the de-designation points, I wholeheartedly accept the points made by the spokesman for the official Opposition and by the Liberal Democrats that it would be an incentive for companies not to invest in improving the water if they knew that after a certain number of years it would be de-designated—although of course I must add the proviso that we have not officially responded to the consultation. However, from looking at what we have had so far, that is certainly what I am feeling.

I also want to address this point. I am sure that it was not intended, but I wondered whether it was coming through that bathing water status is the golden ticket to improve the water in an area. I do not accept that, because if we are saying that bathing water status is the golden ticket to improve the water, that means that we are also almost accepting, on the flip side of that, that if people do not have bathing water status, we are okay with their water being completely polluted.

We are not okay with that. We want to clean up all our rivers, lakes and seas, and we have a plan to do so. We have £104 billion of investment going into the next five years. We are looking at what is happening in bathing waters, and looking at iconic sites around the country. The argument that somewhere needs to have bathing water status or its waters will remain polluted, is one that I challenge head on. That argument almost accepts that we are okay with things remaining polluted. No—we should focus on something much bigger than that, which is how we clean up all of our rivers, lakes and seas, especially looking at bathing waters.

There is a major public health aspect here. It is an important point, and it is why I am delighted that Sir Chris Whitty is one of the expert advisers on the Cunliffe review looking at this. An argument is being made that asks why we are setting a standard, as if to say, “If they are really poor, we don’t want to allocate them as bathing sites.” We should pause and think about that for a moment because, as was illustrated by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), if we are saying something is a bathing site and we give it bathing water status, it implies that it is safe to bathe there. If we designate a site that we know will not be safe for many years to come, and would take a huge amount of investment to become safe, is it right to call that a bathing water site and imply that people are safe to bathe there?

So, I think the sensible and correct decision is to improve all our water everywhere through reforms, which is why we are doing the water review and why we passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. Let us look at the areas that are likely to improve more quickly, and say to people, “You can bathe here, because it will improve more quickly and we can see rapid progress, but these other sites that you want to bathe in—if we think seriously—are not going to improve for a long time.” As a Government, we think that it would be irresponsible to call those sites bathing water sites when we know full well that there could be serious damage to public health.

[Pippa Heylings]

I wanted to clarify that there are two bodies of argument here. Given that there has been a complete lack of regulations and ways to enforce the “polluter pays” principle with water companies until now, status has been seen as one of the only mechanisms to do it. However, I would like the Minister to recognise that these are already bathing sites because the criteria is that they have to show that they are already being used as bathing sites—that they are recognised as culturally and ecologically important. Given that, even though they are poor we should be investing in them to ensure that they continue. We know that if they are declared poor, people are warned of that and therefore do not swim. So we are not subjecting people to unsafe water; we are recognising that these are key bathing areas and have historical, cultural and ecological importance—now and in the future.

[Emma Hardy]

I do not disagree in the slightest. To be completely clear, sites that are already designated as bathing sites of course need enhanced investment and support to improve them, even if they are poor at the moment. I was addressing the point about when we are looking to designate new sites, and answering the question why we are looking at core reform 2.

Again, I stress that we have not officially responded to the consultation. If we are looking at a site that we wish to designate in the future, which is of a really low quality, is it irresponsible to designate that site knowing that it will not reach for five to 10 years the standard it needs to reach? Like everything, that is a question for debate. But for sites that are designated at the moment, I agree that we should be putting extra investment into them even if they are poor.

I do not want to rehearse the many debates and discussions we have already had. There were 36 amendments, I think, to the Water (Special Measures) Act on Report.

[Tim Farron]

Forty-four.

[Emma Hardy]

Forty-four amendments! We had many debates and discussions during the passage of that Act. To rehearse an argument we have had many times before, the reason why we are not focusing on the volume of water coming out is simply because volume can be very diluted, and therefore not a great threat. There can be a small amount of incredibly toxic waste causing a huge amount of damage. I would like to see the investment going into water quality monitors. That is part of the next price review—how can we put water quality monitors in? They would measure whether it is a huge amount and it is dilute, or a small amount and it is toxic. We just want to know what damage is being done to the river. My focus is, and remains, on water quality.

There were some genuinely helpful suggestions from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) about where to place those monitors for measuring water quality. That was a really helpful contribution. While I am paying credit to him, the way we describe it—how we say it is safe to bathe—was also a helpful suggestion.

[Joe Morris]

Will the Minister give way?

[Emma Hardy]

I will; I am praising the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale—let us get back to normal.

[Joe Morris]

The Government have moved quickly on this issue. Does the Minister recognise that it is important that we maintain an engaged and concerned public? I have met with the Wylam clean river group and with other concerned groups throughout my constituency along the length of the Tyne. One thing that continues to resonate with me is that these groups understand that this is a consistent piece of work, and that we need to be constantly iterating on making sure that our rivers do not just get clean, but remain clean into the future. The Government and the public need to consistently work in partnership.

[Emma Hardy]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. I know that he cares deeply about this issue and has spoken to me many times about the importance of cleaning up rivers, lakes and seas. I would like to think it is something that we are united on.

Many stakeholders, many people and many Members have called for bathing water regulations to be updated to reflect the new ways in which we are using our waters or falling into our waters, whatever it might be, and to continue to support public health outcomes. It would be irresponsible for us not to consider public health when we are thinking about designation.

We are a Government who listen. We are a Government who believe in co-production. We are a Government who actively engage. I encourage all Members to contribute to the water review. It is out there now; the consultation is only open for the next seven weeks, so please do not lose the opportunity to have your say.

I put on the record my thanks to all the environmental campaigners, Surfers Against Sewage and all those organisations involved in supporting our clean rivers, lakes and seas.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

The Minister made some points on the length of time it would take to get some popular sites up to standard. Would she consider a pre-designation status, so that those sites are not left on the shelf with no support whatsoever—so that we are recognising, as my hon. Friends have said, the importance of certain sites for sporting, cultural and historical reasons?

[Emma Hardy]

That is a really interesting consideration. I hope the hon. Member fed that into the consultation. I will not commit either way, but it is an interesting point and one I will reflect on—as I said, this is a Government who listen. On that note, I think it is time for me to finish talking. I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Well done for getting your mum in Hansard. I call Gideon Amos to say a few words to sum up.

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Written Corrections

The following extract is from the debate on the draft Flood Reinsurance (Amendment) Regulations 2025 in the Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee on 26 February 2025.

[Emma Hardy]

By using existing capital, Flood Re Ltd is keeping the increase to 18%, while its reinsurance costs are expected to more than double. The reduction from £140 million a year to £135 million a year three years ago also demonstrates Flood Re Ltd’s commitment to its responsibility for keeping the levy as low as possible.

[Official Report, Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee, 26 February 2025; c. 4-5.]

Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy):

[Emma Hardy]

By using existing capital, Flood Re Ltd is keeping the increase to 18%, while its reinsurance costs are expected to more than double. The reduction from £180 million a year to £135 million a year three years ago also demonstrates Flood Re Ltd’s commitment to its responsibility for keeping the levy as low as possible.