Global Plastics Treaty

Bobby Dean Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this debate. Let me highlight one point that he made about the circular economy. He said that if we get the regulation and the incentives right, it would be good not only for the environment, but for business and the economy. That is an important point to keep emphasising.

I would like to use the short amount of time that I have to talk about how we can connect this global issue to our local communities. Let me start with the global problem. Every year, more than 12 million tonnes of plastic are dumped in our oceans—I did hear 11 million tonnes from my right hon. Friend. Whichever it is, it is obviously on a huge scale. This is not just a statistic; it represents an utter crisis—one that affects marine life, ecosystems, and, ultimately, us as well.

To many people, a UN treaty might seem a bit abstract and remote. Some will even go as far as saying that it is not worth the debate time in this Chamber because it is too hard to imagine the average person bringing it up on the doorstep. However, I do not think that is right, because it matters and the population have shown that they care about this issue.

My right hon. Friend mentioned the popularity of Attenborough’s TV documentary and how that has ignited people’s interest. I certainly have this issue raised time and again with me. People have also noticed the impact on their local environment. Unlike my right hon. Friend, I do not have oceans anywhere near my London constituency, but I have a beautiful chalk stream that runs all the way through it. People see the litter and they care about it, and they see the plastic damage in particular. We have introduced new monitoring systems to understand the damage that some of these microplastics can do. People are incredibly proud of their local surroundings, and it is not too big a step for them to think about the oceans across the world when they are thinking about their local area.

As has already been mentioned, not just adults are starting to care more. This is a totemic issue for the next generation. I recently received a bundle of passionate letters from a year 4 class at Culvers House primary school. I say passionate because, at times, I think they were a little harsh on me. I will not take it personally, because I think they were directing their anger at politicians in general. They were at pains to point out that we were not doing enough or moving fast enough. They were quite clear about their demands, and they went into a lot of detail. They told me about their concern for our oceans, for the turtles and fish that are harmed by plastic, and for the future of the planet. Reading their letters one afternoon, I found them pretty powerful and it reminded me of the duty that we all have to act now.

When we talk about the global plastics treaty, it is important that we keep making it relevant to our local communities. It is clearly a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a legally binding agreement that tackles plastic processing at every stage of the lifecycle. For the agreement to work, it has to be ambitious, enforceable, and supported by everybody. Taking the public with us on this issue is going to get more difficult. There are people even in this Chamber who will push back against it, saying that it is a waste of time, that it is a problem to be solved by others elsewhere, but we will have to keep building that support.

In doing so, we have to reverse where the pressure is brought to bear. For a long time, the pressure has been on all of us to be more responsible consumers. Consumers have played their part. They have been willing to put up with recycling yoghurt pots, washing them out in the sink. They have taken on wooden forks and spoons. They have even put up with paper straws. They have done so, despite the pain that all of those things can be compared with what we had before. They have played their part and now it is our turn in this place to put the pressure back on to producers to make sure that they play their part as well. That does not mean that we should not listen to producers when they highlight problems with the schemes we create—for instance, the Government’s extended producer responsibility schemes, which are meant to introduce financial responsibility across the full lifecycle of products. There are sometimes issues with the implementation of schemes. I am hearing from pubs and the hospitality industry about the undue burden that can be placed on small businesses, and we need to work out mechanisms for correcting unintended consequences of such policies.

[John Lamont]

The hon. Member is making a very good speech. I agree with him about the need to take the public and business with us. In Scotland we had a real challenge with the deposit return scheme that the Scottish Government tried to impose, because business was up in arms about it, and it was going to impact on the internal market. Does he agree that that is an example of where it can go very badly wrong if we do not take the public and business with us?

[Bobby Dean]

I do agree; if we close our ears, we will miss these problems, frustrate the public and lose their support. If we listen hard, we can fix the schemes and rescue the action we want to take in this place to help the whole environment. If we do not do that, the other side will win the argument and shut down the sort of initiatives we need to see. We need to keep listening as we introduce these schemes and make sure that the public and small businesses do not feel fatigued by them.

I hope I am making clear that this is not just about treaties and targets but about protecting our rivers and oceans across the world. It is about linking to our communities and maintaining their support and listening to the voices of young people, like those in year 4 at Culvers House primary school. I want to end with something that I have definitely stolen from a work experience student this week. She said to me that we are burdening future generations with plastic debt, and it is about time we started paying it back.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I begin my remarks by acknowledging an interest in this area: my family own and operate a plastic recycling business, though I make it clear to the House that I am not directly involved in the management of the business, nor do I have any financial interest in it.

I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this really important debate. All Members have made hugely valuable contributions. The right hon. Member spoke about the importance of responsibility for not only stakeholders but wider industry and, indeed, policymakers. In the light of the upcoming negotiations on the global plastics treaty, it is an important time to have this debate.

Before coming to the potential treaty, it is worth taking a moment to consider some of the domestic context to our national relationship with plastic, and that brings me on to the other contributions. The hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) rightly raised concerns about microplastics, which have been mentioned by many Members in this House. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) talked about the challenges of plastic litter and plastic waste in his constituency, and he rightly called on the Government to hold China to account in their global discussions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) rightly raised the importance that young people place on reducing plastic usage, and he mentioned the concerns and letters that have been submitted to him by various schools in his constituency, as did the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean). The hon. Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran), who is not in her place, raised the importance of banning single-use vapes and the work of local businesses and organisations in her constituency—including ABBA Voyage, which I have seen, and I noted its work to reduce plastic waste.

The hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) focused on regulation and the importance of this place having an influence on the global plastics treaty. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) rightly raised her staunch objection to the incineration of plastic waste, and I agree with her. In my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley, a planning application for an incinerator was approved by Labour-run Bradford council. I have been staunchly against that, and I wish her well in her local campaign.

The hon. Member for Bangor Aberconwy (Claire Hughes) talked about research undertaken by Professor Christian Dunn at Bangor University, which I hope the Minister will look at. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) and his neighbour, the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), talked about the importance of progressing conversations on the global plastics treaty and the need for a greater focus on the concerns of their constituents, raised today by the strong voice of their Edinburgh representatives.

The hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) talked about the importance of reducing virgin plastic production and the need for a real focus on increasing recycling rates. Finally, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) referenced the importance of local groups that drive forward change.

For decades, we have used plastic in ever more roles and in ever greater amounts. Indeed, plastics have replaced many everyday items that once were made from paper, glass or metal. Plastic may have been the way forward then, but that does not mean it need be the way forward now for everything. For that reason, I welcome the important steps that were taken by the previous Conservative Government. Plastic straws, drink stirrers and single-use plastic bags are all notorious for polluting our natural environment, and it was therefore right that efforts were taken to ban them.

In fact, the plastic bag charge has successfully seen plastic bag usage reduced by 98%. Other restrictions on single-use plastic cutlery, cups, trays, plates and many other items are now in force, with the ban having an important effect on reducing residual waste. Residual waste is key. We know that the UK produces a huge amount of plastic waste—as much as the second most per capita globally—but we also know that, due to strong environmental protections, very little of that waste is now handled irresponsibly. Of course, there is always more to be done.

For comparison, 80% of the plastics in the ocean originate from Asia, compared with just 0.4% from Europe. Reducing residual waste must be the key pillar of any international treaty on plastic waste. The previous Government understood that when they legislated in the Environment Act 2021 to halve residual waste, and I trust that the Minister will be able to reassure us that it remains the key goal of this Government.

[Bobby Dean]

The hon. Gentleman is talking well about the general state of plastic in the world, but we are debating the global plastics treaty. Can he confirm whether his party supports the UK being a signatory?

[Robbie Moore]

I will come on to those points, but I first wanted to outline the nature of the debate, because it is important to recognise the contributions that have been made.

We know that reducing our plastic use is vital for two key reasons. The first is the impact on the environment. It is estimated that as many as 1 million seabirds die each year as a result of entanglement in plastic. In fact, at current rates of increase, the weight of plastic in the oceans will outweigh all fish by 2050. Plastics also pollute our inland waterways, having a detrimental impact on nearby areas, especially when we consider the long-term chemical effects of decomposition.

The second reason is the growing body of research showing that long-term exposure to plastics is bad for our health—particularly microplastics, as the hon. Member for Stafford mentioned. Everything from hair loss to fatigue, heart conditions and strokes have been linked to microplastics. What is most concerning is that, while the health links may not yet be fully understood, we know that microplastics persist for centuries, not only in the environment but in our bodies. As we use more plastic through our lives, these levels build, potentially increasing the risks.

That is precisely why securing an effective global framework to reduce plastic use is key. The resolutions passed in 2022 were an encouraging first step and show clearly that countries across the world recognise the challenge and wish to tackle it. Crucially, this global support for progress on plastics is key to ensuring that standards are raised uniformly and that the risk that plastic waste is simply offshored is significantly reduced. We simply must not offshore our responsibility.

Equally, we must be realistic about how we manage plastics. We must recognise that unilaterally banning or heavily restricting many types of plastic will leave us uncompetitive on the global stage. We must work with other nations and bring those that are sceptical along with us. That scepticism is precisely why we must use the negotiations on this treaty to take these matters forward, and to make them concrete.

We cannot simply have goals or aspirations. We must have verifiable targets that can be measured so that we can hold organisations and stakeholders to account. Naturally, we should then expect all signatories to fulfil those obligations. I hope the Government are able to confirm that they will push for the inclusion of these measures in the treaty as they continue to negotiate, to ensure compliance by ourselves and other partners.

We must continue to work not only on the global plastics treaty but to improve our plastic waste record at home. We must continue to invest in our sorting and volume capacity within the recycling sector to ensure that the amount of recycling continues to go up, and to reduce the amount going to landfill.

Plastic pollution is not going away. Many plastics will be with us for thousands of years, so it is vital that we act to stop the flow of waste into our environment. When discussions are reopened next month in Geneva, I hope that the Minister will be in attendance and that the Government will be successful in securing the robust and practical treaty that we all hope to see.

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

It is a pleasure to respond to the debate, so ably introduced by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). He, along with every Member from across the Chamber who made a contribution, pointed out the seriousness of the issue and the urgent need for action.

Plastic pollution is one of the biggest environmental issues that we face today. Once hailed as a miracle of modern invention, plastic is now one of our planet’s most persistent threats. Its greatest strength—durability—has become its darkest flaw. These materials are designed to last and do just that—for centuries. They do not simply disappear, but break down into tiny fragments, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) so ably pointed out, and these microplastics invade our beaches, rivers, fields and even our bodies. From the depths of the oceans to the cells of living creatures, plastic pollution is everywhere.

For too long, plastic has littered our oceans and threatened our wildlife. Amounts of plastic entering the ocean are predicted to triple by 2040 compared with 2016. That is unacceptable. Plastic pollution does not respect boundaries. We urgently need to agree a plastics treaty to enable global action to address this, so with that in mind, I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and his Committee for their recent inquiry into the treaty, and for their letter of recommendations for the forthcoming negotiations on an international treaty to end plastic pollution. It is a very timely input, and I read it with interest as we finalised our preparations for the negotiations. I look forward to responding more fully in due course, but the Committee can be assured that this Government are taking every step to ensure that we secure an ambitious and effective global plastics pollution treaty. This will be both a tool for moving towards a circular economy and an opportunity to showcase some of the domestic action that the UK has taken.

A circular economy is key to delivering our Government’s plan for change—to grow the economy, increase environmental resilience and improve the lives of hard-working people around the country. That is why our circular economy taskforce has brought together experts from across Government, industry, academia and civil society to develop the first circular economy strategy for England. It will include a road map on chemicals and plastics, deliver growth and fundamentally shift our relationship with the goods that we use every day, ending our throwaway society and stopping the avalanche of rubbish that is filling up our high streets, countryside and oceans, making reuse and repair the norm, and ending the throwaway society. A circular economy is an opportunity to grow our economy and make it more resilient, to improve lives in every part of the United Kingdom, and to protect our environment for generations to come.

Domestically, the Government are already working with the devolved Governments to legislate across the UK for the ban on wet wipes containing plastic. From 1 June this year, the sale and supply of single-use vapes was banned across the UK. The deposit return scheme for single-use plastic and metal drinks containers in England, Northern Ireland and Scotland will launch in October 2027, which will drive our efforts to stop litter filling up our streets, rivers and oceans. I am grateful for the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) about the story in Scotland.

Additionally, the extended producer responsibility for packaging came into effect on 1 January this year. It will move the full cost of dealing with household packaging waste away from local taxpayers and on to the packaging producers themselves. I was pleased to hear the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bangor Aberconwy (Claire Hughes) about the great successes of the Labour Government, working with people in Wales, on issues around recycling.

[Bobby Dean]

The EPR scheme is obviously welcome and Liberal Democrat Members know the intention, but the scheme appears to have some unintended effects. The scheme will not only impact producers but small businesses, hospitality businesses in particular, who have raised their concerns. Will the Minister continue to listen to those businesses and try to adjust the scheme, so it works for them as well?

[Daniel Zeichner]

Of course—absolutely. We are always working in collaboration, and we will do everything we can to ensure that. It is an important principle that has been established, and I am determined to ensure that it is successful.

Next month, at the resumed fifth session of the intergovernmental negotiating committee, we will have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to agree an ambitious and effective international agreement to end plastic pollution. We want a treaty that tackles the full life cycle of plastics and promotes a circular economy. The UK has been a key advocate for an effective treaty throughout and is a founding member of the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution—a coalition of nearly 70 countries from across all regions of the world.

At INC5, the UK joined over 80 other ambitious countries to make clear the weight of support for an ambitious treaty. Recently, at the UN ocean conference in Nice, we joined nearly 100 countries in signing the Nice wake-up call for an ambitious international treaty to end plastic pollution. Those demonstrate the commitment to reaching an agreement at INC5.2 in August and the weight of support for an ambitious treaty. I am proud of the leadership role that the UK has taken in the negotiations, and we continue to take significant action to drive ambition and demonstrate leadership.

River Wandle Pollution

Bobby Dean Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered pollution in the River Wandle.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the Minister for the reply to my letter of 20 February, received today, and I hope she will shortly be able to provide further clarity in her reply to the debate.

The prompt for the debate is the latest environmental disaster on the Wandle, where 4,000 litres of diesel were spilled by a bus garage in Thornton Heath into the sewage network, and eventually into the River Wandle. As I will go on to explain, the incident was not a one-off but an example of the sort of threat that the River Wandle faces every day. Before I do that, I would like to set out my relationship with the River Wandle. I live right beside the river and, although I have not spent my life as an environmental campaigner, like many people in my area I have formed a bond with the river by walking my dog alongside it every day.

About a year and a half ago, I got together with a group of local filmmakers to make a documentary about the history of the Wandle, the threats it has faced and the community work around it. During the making of that film, my love for the river crystalised and ended up feeling quite protective. I found out about its special status as a chalk stream. There are around 200 chalk streams in the world, famous for their crystal clear water and clean gravel. The River Wandle is globally unique because around 1 million people live in the catchment of the river, which is mostly publicly accessible all the way, running through south London to the Thames. It is probably the only urban chalk stream of its kind in the world.

The Wandle is famous for its industry. The fast-flowing water made it attractive to mills and over time much of the river was straightened to serve those mills. The textile industry was particularly attracted to this river; William Morris was inspired by it. It was said to be one of the hardest-worked rivers in the world. I am told that the historical significance stretches way back. It was used by the Romans and was the location for the statute of Merton, one of the earliest statutes in English history, passed on the banks of the River Wandle at Merton priory in 1235.

After the mills declined, their legacy remained, with the canal-like structure that built up to them. Eventually the river became better known for carrying waste, until the 1970s when it was officially declared a sewer. That was a turning point for the river, with lots of grassroots activism inspired by that moment. We had anglers, other fishermen, the Wandle Trust, which became the South East Rivers Trust, and Wandle Valley Forum, as well as smaller groups such as Friends of Poulter Park.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

The River Wandle, which sounds beautiful, does not run through my constituency, but the River Sow does. It was polluted by sewage 59 times in 2023, lasting a total of 816 hours. Does the hon. Member agree that the findings of the Independent Water Commission, established by this Government, will be crucial in finding a solution?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bobby Dean]

I absolutely agree. As I hope to describe, the River Wandle is just one example of what is happening to rivers across the country. I am sure the outcome of that review will be extremely important.

I was talking about the revival of the river over time, and it is thanks to the efforts of lots of local community groups. As part of those restoration efforts, I have put my waders on and gone into the river, seeing the effect of the work myself. We have worked inside the channel of the canal and brought it back to its natural state, narrowing the river at points with deflectors, so that the water can flow and clean the gravel much better, bringing back the natural meandering, allowing the river to deposit sediment in the right places, and overall much improving the health of the river.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Member has outlined the devastation to the River Wandle caused by a number of spillages. A number of years ago, we had a spillage in our constituency in one of our many waterways. After a lot of hard work by the business community and local volunteers, they were able to restore that waterway. Does the hon. Member agree that those who did the damage must bear the brunt of the cost?

[Bobby Dean]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The polluter pays principle is a key point I am going to come on to. As we are hearing, this is not just an issue that affects my constituency, but constituencies right across the United Kingdom.

The centrepiece of my film was about sewage. We built up to a crescendo where eventually we saw footage of raw sewage running along one of these channels and meeting the River Wandle. This was the moment where people realised that their toilets are plumbed into the river. The latest episode on the Wandle is one that I hope will raise public awareness about the fact that the drains on their streets are plumbed into the river, too.

On Monday 17 February, we released a new film about a brilliant nature restoration project happening just downstream from where I live. Just the week before that, we had a very happy meeting where 60 local people turned up to a local community centre to hear about a further restoration project that will happen around the corner from my house. Yet just 24 hours later, after the high of releasing that positive news, I received images on my phone of a bird covered in oil; it was shocking. I got straight onto the Environment Agency and contacted other local organisations such as the South East River Trust and the regional media.

The next day I was walking my dog, as I have always done, along the riverbanks. I have got to admit that at first I did not really notice the damage, but as I progressed downstream and got to the area near Poulter Park, the smell hit me and I could see the sheen of rainbow-like fluid on top of the river. The reason why I did not see it immediately outside my house is because the diesel had entered the river via the drainage system, and there is a key point, a canal point, where it meets the Wandle, so although the area around my house was fairly protected, once I hit that point the visible shock of the diesel spill was very evident.

I had a call with the Environment Agency that morning, and it reassured me about its response and I met with lots of other conservation charities later on that day. I was glad to hear that booms were eventually put in place to help protect the Wandle.

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

Like the hon. Member, I was born and brought up along the banks of the River Wandle. Today, it is a much more prestigious river than it was all those years ago. In fact, there is a connection with the Chamber today, because the leather on these seats came from Connolly’s leather factory, which was a tannery on the Wandle before Connolly’s moved down to Thurrock to continue its business. It also makes the leather for Rolls-Royce, so its service is very important.

I congratulate the hon. Member on all his work on this issue. It seems to make sense as a layperson that the polluter should pay. My concern, and that of many of my constituents, is that that process will take so long that supreme damage will be done to the wildlife and to the Wandle itself unless we do that more quickly. Does the hon. Member think there is any way we can speed up the process of ensuring that those who are guilty of this spillage actually pay the costs?

[Bobby Dean]

I thank the hon. Member for graciously allowing me to trip over our shared boundary into her constituency now and again to do media reports on this issue. She is absolutely right to point out the polluter pays principle, and also ask how speedily it might be implemented, because the damage is happening right now and we need to rectify it as soon as possible.

Moving on to that accountability process, there are still many questions that the community wants answered. We want to know when exactly the spillage happened. We want to know if 4,000 litres is an accurate estimate of the diesel. We want to know precisely how it made its way through the sewage network into the river. We want to know whether the Environment Agency’s response was quick enough. We want to know whether there was a pre-existing plan for this kind of accident; the way the sewage system is connected means that we would expect there to be one. If there was such a plan, was it put in place immediately? Of course, we also want to know who will pay not only for the response but for the damage that has been done to the river.

I have already said that the Environment Agency’s engagement with me was quick, which I very much appreciate. However, I am also conscious that the agency is marking its own homework on the speed and the detail of the response. Like Thames Water and Transport for London, it has tough questions to answer—all of these bodies do. Key partners, such as the National Trust and the South East Rivers Trust, have had to operate on their own initiative at times, without information cascading down from these bodies or a clear plan to follow. There are some fears among people in the community that the Environment Agency might have been playing down the impact of the incident, and it is not totally clear what actions were taken at what time.

As I have talked to conservationists, I have come to understand that when diesel dissipates, that is not the end of the destruction it can cause, because it will have broken down into the water body, and entered the sediments of the soil and into fish gills.

[Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)]

It is important to make the point that sewage in rivers filters into our coastlines in constituencies such as mine in Weston-super-Mare. The type of crisis that the hon. Gentleman is outlining very eloquently in his local river demands a generational transformation, with clear penalties for water bosses. Does he agree that the polluters must pay and that bonuses for water bosses must be banned, which will, I think, be achieved through the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025?

[Bobby Dean]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; he makes the same point that others have made, namely that the polluter must pay. That is a core principle that I hope this Government will implement in the strongest possible terms, including bans on bonuses for water bosses.

Let me finish my point about the Environment Agency. As I have already said, its response to me was quick and I hope that it has acted with all the resources that it can deploy. However, there are some concerns that it has played down the impact of this incident. The email that I received from the agency on the day talked about how the pollution will wash away once it reaches the Thames. The latest update that I have received says that the diesel is clearly dispersing around the river and that reports about it are declining in number. However, as I have just explained, the fact that the number of reports is declining does not necessarily mean that the damage has gone away. A key point is that I do not understand what baseline monitoring the Environment Agency was conducting in the first place in order for it to make the assessment that this incident has caused very little damage to the river.

I have some specific questions for the Minister about the diesel spill; I appreciate that some of them might need to be followed up in writing. Can she advise us on how we can co-ordinate the investigations by multiple stakeholders into a single independent inquiry? If there is such an inquiry, will the Government ensure that it establishes a clear timeline of events and accountability at every stage? Will she enforce the principle that the polluter pays, which so many Members have discussed today, and ensure that any fines will go directly towards improving the River Wandle, rather than into a general fund?

This incident has been truly shocking, not only to me and the local community but to the region as a whole, mostly because of its scale—that is what has caught the public’s attention. However, this kind of pollution happens every single day, not by accident but by design. The combined sewerage system has become high profile as a result of the campaigning against sewage that has been happening over the last year. However, we have heard less about the road run-off network, which makes an urban river like the Wandle especially vulnerable to such incidents. What goes down the drains can end up in our river, and when we think about a massive diesel spill such as this one, we should also think about all the types of pollutants that are running off our road network into our rivers every single day.

At the moment, there is a lack of monitoring, so we do not really know what damage that pollution is having. We have a poor understanding of what the sewerage network looks like. Which drains connect directly into the river? Which ones go via the sewage treatment works? We do not really know the answers to those questions. There are also very limited mitigation measures. I know that fixing the entire infrastructure of this network would be difficult, but there are also measures that we can take further downstream.

We have inadequate resilience, which could be addressed by the nature restoration projects that I referred to earlier. All the industrial adaptation that I also spoke about earlier—basically, how the river been canalised over the years—is choking off the river’s capacity to heal itself. We can see that the Wandle does not have much of a chance when there are 1 million inhabitants and a road network surrounding it.

I am glad that the Government recognise that chalk streams need special protection, but I would love it if they recognised that urban chalk streams, such as the River Wandle, deserve even greater protection.

The renewed attention on water quality in all of our waterways nationwide is extremely welcome. I know there are concerns that progress may be too slow: for example, in my area the major upgrades planned by Thames Water are not due to begin until 2035.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I am the constituency neighbour of my hon. Friend, and my residents enjoy the River Wandle just as much as his do. I am glad he has taken time off from walking along the river with his wife and his dog to speak about this in the Chamber.

When Sutton is building new homes, to try to keep up with the demand for the homes our residents so badly need, the sewage processing capacity at the Beddington treatment works which feed into the Wandle is a concern to all. It is often commented upon at the planning committee on which I frequently sit. In consideration of the infrastructure needed to support these new homes, does he agree we need to make sure that Thames Water ensures we do not end up with more frequent discharges into the river? These would put all the incredible hard work of the groups that have been looking after the Wandle at risk.

[Bobby Dean]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am glad to see another of my constituency neighbours in the room today. New housing developments are a massive opportunity for the industry to implement new infrastructure that we need, and to understand what connects where. If we get it right, and companies work with the Environment Agency and other authorities, this should result in a net improvement in sewage discharges.

Coming back to the major infrastructure question we have, and the point that some of that work will be too slow. I understand why. The Institute for Civil Engineers has estimated it could cost over £100 billion to fix this issue over the long term. There is more we can do now, however. Someone who is sitting behind me, Dr Jack Hogan from the South East Rivers Trust, has said,

“There can be a rainbow at the end of this disaster that is not the sheen of diesel.”

I agree with him.

South East Rivers Trust is running a crowdfunder to get increased monitoring along the Wandle. That has got off to a fantastic start, with over £20,000 raised already. Increased monitoring would be a good thing. I have already spoken about restoration projects happening up and down the Wandle, but they could get so much bigger in scope. We are not talking about billions of pounds here; we are talking about millions. There are things called downstream defenders, which are an excellent innovation. We will not be able to fix the entire infrastructure overnight but we do know where the outfalls are and where the sewage network meets the river. If we put interventions in those spaces we can clean up the quality of water before it reaches the river itself. Ultimately, we have the potential to reconfigure parks, wetlands, fish barriers and overall access to the public and to make the River Wandle an internationally significant river park if we put our minds to it.

In addition to answering my specific questions on the diesel spill inquiry, can the Minister outline what support there is to make these improvements to the River Wandle? More broadly, can she explain the fundamental infrastructure problem of combined sewage systems and run-off from roadside drains will be addressed? Will the Department look again at the formalisation of the Water Restoration Fund? This is important for the principle of polluter pays. I know the Government recently did not back an amendment to the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 on this, but it is important to campaigners, who want to ensure all polluters pay—not just the water companies—and that those payments go directly into affected areas, such as the River Wandle.

I thank the Minister for listening to my speech. I hope it is clear that I love the Wandle just as much as many of my constituents do. This has been a horrible moment for it, but we also hope it is the start of fresh hope.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Bobby Dean Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. The water companies simply do not fear Ofwat, or indeed any other part of our fragmented regulatory system. They dwarf Ofwat in terms of resources, they flout the limited regulations that they face, and they run rings around the regulators and obviously get away with it. There was the outrage of the water companies being permitted, just before Christmas, to increase water bills by 36% by 2030, and what makes it even worse is that a third of customers’ bills are being spent just on servicing the debt—a debt that was in part run up to fund excessive dividends.

Water companies are already passing on the consequences of their complete financial mismanagement to our constituents—their customers—but this Bill could enable that to go further and to be even worse. According to the Government’s explanatory notes,

“following the provision of financial assistance by the Secretary of State to a company in special administration”,

clause 12 of the Bill, as drafted, would

“require a water company to raise amounts of money determined by the Secretary of State from its consumers, and to pay those amounts to the Secretary of State to make good any shortfall”.

In other words, when a water company goes into special administration, there is a cost to the Government of ensuring that supply is maintained, and the Government need to recoup that cost. That sounds reasonable at first glimpse, but it does not seem reasonable that bill payers should have to pick up the tab, despite bearing none of the blame for the financial mess a water company finds itself in.

My hon. Friends and I are keen to press amendment 9, which would make it explicit that it should be the creditors of the companies—the big financial investors that have loaded debt on to the water companies—that cover those costs instead. The amendment would strike out the Government’s provision in the Bill that opens up bill payers to carrying the cost of paying off company debt, even in the event of bankruptcy.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I fear that the Government’s drive for growth has meant that they have become fearful of the tough regulation that my hon. Friend suggests. They see it only as an impediment, instead of the basis for a stable economy. Does he agree that weak regulation is not only bad for consumers and for the environment, but also for investment over the long run?

[Tim Farron]

Somebody representing the water industry will say that the water industry, as structured, is deeply unappealing to investors. There is a case for changing the model of how we structure those companies. When a company goes into special administration, we do not think it is right that innocent customers should have to foot the bill. The management of those companies, and their investors and creditors, are responsible for the mess the company is in. They took the risks and speculated in order to make money, so it is only right that they should have to cover the costs of the risks that they took, not our constituents.

One of the positive aspects of the Bill is the Government’s decision to deploy volunteers, citizen scientists and campaigners to ensure scrutiny of the water industry. Only last week, I spent time speaking with the leaders of the Save Windermere campaign and the Clean River Kent Campaign. I also enjoyed getting my hands dirty and my legs very wet alongside the Eden Rivers Trust in the River Eden not long ago. We are lucky across the whole country to have passionate, committed, expert volunteers who are dedicated to cleaning up and protecting our precious waterways, yet we are saddened that the Government have failed to provide those volunteers with the resources they need or the power they deserve.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bobby Dean Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was extraordinary, was it not, that the last Government managed not to spend £300 million of the farm budget. We are determined to ensure that we do better. I wish him and his farmers a very merry Christmas.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

T5. In my constituency we have an incinerator that regularly breaches its air pollution limits, but the Environment Agency does nothing about it. Will the Government tell us what they are doing to give the EA teeth?

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

Incineration permit breaches are a matter for the regulator, the Environment Agency, but we are reviewing energy-from-waste capacity across the country and will be making a statement imminently.