Asked by: Barry Gardiner (Labour - Brent West)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment she has made of the implications for her policies of the Office for Environmental Protection Investigation Report, published in December 2025.
Answered by Mary Creagh - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
In December 2025, the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) published the concluding reports of its investigation into the regulation of network Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) in England. I was pleased to see recognition that work undertaken by this Government has built the foundations for much needed change in the water sector.
The OEP stated that, throughout the investigation, all public authorities engaged constructively, with a focus on the outcome of protecting the environment. We agree with the OEP that it is important for Defra, the Environment Agency and Ofwat to be fully transparent when it comes to their roles and responsibilities in the regulation of network CSOs.
Asked by: Barry Gardiner (Labour - Brent West)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether her Department plans to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of the (a) financial and (b) non-financial costs to the public between the privatised model and public ownership of the water industry over (i) the rest of PR24 and (ii) over the following 30 years.
Answered by Emma Hardy - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
The reality is it would take years to unpick the current ownership model, it would be extremely complex, and we would be in the courts for years.
Billions of pounds of private investment going in to fixing broken pipes would be slashed in the meantime.
Nationalisation would a black hole in the public finances, this money would be better spent on our hospitals and schools.
Nationalisation is not the answer – tougher regulation is – which is why we’re giving the regulators more teeth through things like these swift automatic penalties.
In the Water White Paper, we are clear that where a water company might want to transition to a new ownership model, such as a not-for-profit, the new regulator will assess whether this should go ahead and ensure customer interests are properly reflected in the decision.
Asked by: Barry Gardiner (Labour - Brent West)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if her department has set a date by which it aims to have ended operator self-monitoring in the water industry.
Answered by Emma Hardy - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
We want to move away from Operator Self‑Monitoring because the current system does not provide the transparency or independent assurance the public expects. As set out in the Water White Paper, we are working with regulators on how best to transition to an open, independently verified monitoring model. We will set out further detail once this work is complete.
Asked by: Barry Gardiner (Labour - Brent West)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, with reference to the Office for Environmental Protection’s report entitled Investigation Report addressed to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in relation to their compliance with the Water Industry Act 1991 and the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017 regarding the regulation of network combined sewer overflows, published in December 2025, whether her Department accepts that report’s findings that there have been failures to comply with environmental law by (a) her Department, (b) Ofwat and (c) the Environment Agency.
Answered by Emma Hardy - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
The Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) concluded its investigation in December 2025 and is taking no further action due to the significant progress that has been made by Defra, Ofwat and the Environment Agency (EA). This progress includes:
The OEP stated that, throughout the investigation, all public authorities engaged constructively, with a focus on the outcome of protecting the environment.
Asked by: Barry Gardiner (Labour - Brent West)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether her Department has formally responded to the Office for Environmental Protection's information notices regarding compliance with the Water Framework Directive.
Answered by Emma Hardy - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
This Government welcomes the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP)'s investigation, and we responded to their Information Notice on 6 March. We continue to work collaboratively with them to improve our waterways.
The Government accepts the OEP’s conclusion that not enough progress has been made in meeting the Water Framework Directive’s objectives for water quality, and that this is due to a lack of investment and action over the last 15 years since the first River Basin Management Plans were published.
Our Water White Paper sets out long-term reforms to strengthen regulation and planning, reduce pollution, and accelerate the delivery of vital infrastructure.
Asked by: Barry Gardiner (Labour - Brent West)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what work her department has taken to ensure overflown communities are represented in the governance structure of the UK Airspace Design Service.
Answered by Keir Mather - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
The Government and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) jointly consulted on proposals to establish a UK Airspace Design Service (UKADS) in 2024, and responses to that consultation, including from overflown communities, has helped to inform our plans. Between 17 November 2025 and 12 January 2026 the CAA consulted on guidance for the UKADS, including governance and stakeholder engagement. The outcome of this consultation will be published by the CAA.
In addition, the CAA’s Airspace Change Process (CAP1616) sets out how airspace change proposals must be developed and delivered. A fundamental part of this process is the requirement for the airspace change sponsor, which would include the UKADS, to consult those who may be affected by airspace change and to consider their views before any final proposals are submitted.
Asked by: Barry Gardiner (Labour - Brent West)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when she expects the UK Airspace Design Service to be fully operational.
Answered by Keir Mather - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
The UK Airspace Design Service (UKADS) provided by NATS En Route PLC (NERL) has now begun work to enable it to deliver its functions and design airspace for the complex London region. A number of processes to complete the establishment of the UKADS will be completed over the coming weeks including the publication of updated guidance documents and decision on changes to the conditions of the NERL Licence by the CAA.
Asked by: Barry Gardiner (Labour - Brent West)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what environmental duties will be placed on the UK Airspace Design Service.
Answered by Keir Mather - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
The UK Airspace Design Service (UKADS) must follow the processes for airspace change, including environmental requirements, set by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in line with the Government’s Air Navigation Directions and Air Navigation Guidance.
Any airspace change proposal must follow the CAA’s CAP1616 airspace change process. CAP1616 sets out how sponsors of airspace change, including the UKADS, must undertake comprehensive environmental assessments for airspace options which are under consideration. There are also requirements for airspace change sponsors to provide sufficient information and carry out consultation with those who may be affected by a change, before any final proposals are submitted.
A consultation on potential changes to the Air Navigation Directions and Air Navigation Guidance closed on 26 January 2026 and the outcome will be published later this year.