Water Bill
Carla Denyer Excerpts(3 days, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that hospital pass. I will make a note not to follow the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) again, if I can help it. I will just try to do a good job, and perhaps not to speak for quite as long.
I am delighted to be here to discuss and support this Bill, and I thank the hon. Member for bringing it forward. It will be no surprise to anyone here that I am absolutely in favour of this Bill to fix the despicable situation of our waterways. To do that, we need to bring water back into public ownership. This issue is so important to me and my Green colleagues that we tabled the first early-day motion of this Parliament on the public ownership of water. We highlighted that sewage was
“being discharged into English waterways for more than 3.6 million hours in 2023…that water companies in England have incurred debts of more than £64 billion and paid out £78 billion in dividends”—
note the similarity of those numbers—
“since they were privatised debt-free in 1989”.
We pointed out that
“water companies paid out £1.4 billion in dividends in 2022, even as 11 of them were fined in the same year for missing performance targets”.
Privatisation is just not working. The experiment has failed. We are one of the only countries in the world with a fully privatised water system, which shows that it is a bad idea. Water is a natural monopoly. For example, people who live in the south-west, as I do, cannot choose to be supplied by Yorkshire Water. I am not sure that they would want to, but my point is that when their provider gives a poor service and charges extortionate sums, they cannot take their business elsewhere. There is no fair competition. You get what you get, and you cannot get upset about it—but we are upset about it, because sewage is being pumped into our water, and we are paying through the nose for the privilege, all while shareholders profit.
Neil Coyle
On the point about taking business elsewhere, do the Greens have a policy on how to perpetually nationalise an industry? One of the difficulties is that if we nationalise now, a future Government can do something very different. What is the Greens’ position on that?
Carla Denyer
One of the reasons why I support the Bill brought forward by the hon. Member for Norwich South is that it uses the tool of a citizens’ assembly to ask the public how they think the system should work, and to explore different options, rather than predetermining the exact model. For clarity, the Green party and I support public ownership of public services, but that does not necessarily mean nationalisation. Before the water companies were privatised, they were owned regionally, and I think that would be a sensible model this time. I also think that the citizens’ assembly could look into other forms of public ownership, such as co-operatives.
Carla Denyer
I will make some progress, rather than having a long back and forth.
We are paying through inflated bills, paying with our health, and now we may be paying with our public money, as the Government have said that they are ready to bail out Thames Water, which was privatised in 1989 with no debt. Since then, it has racked up £14.7 billion in debt and at the same time—note the similarity of these numbers—paid out £10.4 billion to its shareholders. If that is not a scam, I do not know what is. Privatisation was supposed to keep prices down, but it has done the opposite. More than one third of people’s bills is used to pay interest on debt, or to pay dividends to shareholders.
The Government are taking some steps to improve the situation. I absolutely welcome those steps, as far as they go, but these issues are not likely to go away without our considering the option, or looking into the possibility, of bringing water companies back into public hands. That is why I was disappointed to learn that the Government’s supposedly independent commission on the water sector regulatory system is not being allowed—despite being independent—to consider public ownership as one of the options, though I note with interest the establishment of the people’s commission on the water sector, which will look into this option as part of its broader scope.
Chris McDonald
This is a subject on which I value the hon. Lady’s opinion. My greatest concern about this Bill is the people’s commission, and I wonder if she could assuage my concern. I fear that setting up an alternative representative body impinges on the rights of this Chamber, which is the prime expression of democracy in the UK, and that the two could be brought into conflict. It is a big concern for me. Is there anything that she can say to assuage my concern?
Carla Denyer
If hon. Members of this House feel threatened by the setting up of a citizens’ assembly in order to gather views, that may be an indication of the weakness of the democracy that we have in this place. I really value the contribution that citizens’ assemblies can make. They have been used in other countries, notably Ireland. They are not a replacement for the House of Commons, but they can add valuable extra detail.
Ellie Chowns
Does my hon. Friend agree that we have the example of the citizens’ assembly on climate change, which was established jointly by six Select Committees of this House a couple of years ago?
Carla Denyer
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I would also point to the citizens’ assembly set up by Bristol city council. Citizens’ assemblies are particularly strong at looking in depth at detailed, specific questions, rather than broad topics to do with how the entire country is run. I see citizens’ assemblies not as replacing the role of the House of Commons, but as supplementing it valuably.
Neil Coyle
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask for your direction? This is a debate, and there is no time limit. Is there any way of pressing a Member to answer a question during a debate, or to at least allow a debate to occur? I had a follow-up question that the hon. Member seems reluctant to allow.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The hon. Gentleman knows that it is entirely up to the Member who is speaking to decide whether they wish to take or reject an intervention, just as it is up to Members attempting to make an intervention to either persist in the attempt or not. We will let the debate continue, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is plenty of time.
Neil Coyle
I am very grateful. The reason why I persist is that the issue of a citizens’ assembly has come up. My previous question was: how could a Government—any Government—bind the actions of a future democratically elected Government? A citizens’ assembly does not have the power to do that. I am intrigued; how can the Greens believe that a citizens’ assembly could bind a future Government, of any political persuasion, to not re-privatising our water industry?
Carla Denyer
Of course a current Government cannot bind a future Government on a decision like that indefinitely, and I was not suggesting that they could, but as I pointed out, as England is one of very few countries on the entire planet with a fully privatised water system, I suspect and hope that if we returned to a public system, it would be more likely to stay public, as both elected representatives and the public would see that the system performed better when the profit motive was removed.
Clive Lewis
People talk about whether something can be taken out of public control and put back into privatisation. Of course, Parliament is sovereign and that can always happen, but there is a point about giving control to the public. Let us take the NHS, which is a public service. Any Government in the post-war period could have taken the NHS back into privatisation. Why did they not do so? They would not have dared, because it would have been so publicly damaging and politically destructive. That is what would happen with our water. Does the hon. Member agree? [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. May I remind people in the Public Gallery to remain silent?
Carla Denyer
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful reminder about the analogy with the national health service.
Public ownership is not just essential for social and environmental justice; it is also, in this situation, a pragmatic necessity. It just makes sense, which is why almost everyone else does things that way. With water back in public hands, the Government could invest in fixing the crumbling infrastructure and cleaning up our rivers, or preventing them from getting into such a state in the first place, without haemorrhaging money to shareholders and allowing it to spill over—sorry; I couldn’t resist—into fat cats’ salaries.
People are struggling to put food on the table and heat their homes. We cannot allow water companies to contribute to that situation by hiking up the bills that everyone has to pay. Without real change, we will not stop sewage flowing into our rivers and profits flowing into the pockets of shareholders. There is an obvious answer that makes both people and the environment the winners: if they so choose, the Government could bring water companies back into public hands, to end the profiteering, drive down bills, protect our rivers, waterways and coastline, and catch up with the public who, as the hon. Member for Norwich South pointed out, are way ahead of the Labour Government on this issue and much else.
Dame Meg Hillier
That is one of the challenges: we can set up this lengthy and expensive process and then it does not necessarily hold any sway.
I was going through the provisions in clause 4, and as we get into the details of the citizens’ assembly, I sense that there is an appetite to discuss that. Perhaps I can continue my remarks before I take any further interventions, or we will be here all day—but I suppose that that is what today is for. The commission would support the work of the citizens’ assembly. Clause 4(2) states that
“the Commission on Water must undertake a public consultation on water ownership in which all individuals who use water and sewerage services in England and Wales can participate.”
Hallelujah to that—to a strong, well-founded public consultation! We can all go out to our constituencies and do roundtables, knock on doors and ask people what they have to say about water. However, I think that most of us have had quite a strong indication about that from our constituents, in our mailboxes and from our time on doorsteps—I have not got into all the issues in the waterways in Hackney, which are utterly appalling in relation to sewage discharge. We need to make sure that we have that public consultation.
Carla Denyer
If the hon. Member is so aware of the overwhelming public support for public ownership of water, as she just indicated from the level of concern in her constituency, I am confused about why she is so dogged in her pursuit of continued privatisation.
Dame Meg Hillier
I urge the hon. Lady to listen to what I say. I did not say that I had people saying overwhelmingly that they wanted public ownership—certainly not. They are saying that there is a problem, and saying, “You lot are in government. You need to sort it out.” Over the last 20 years that I have been in this place, and particularly in the last Parliament, there has been endless discussion about how to resolve this situation, and stasis in the Government. We now have a Government who have acted to begin to tackle some of these huge challenges. I give real credit to the Minister, who has engaged massively with Members across the House on this. She is absolutely aware of the issues, partly because many of us across the House have lobbied her, because our constituents have lobbied us. I do not think there is doubt about the problem; the issue is about the solution.
We should absolutely have a big public consultation, but that is to inform the work of the citizens’ assembly. Clause 4(3) states that the citizens’ assembly must
“be composed of a randomly selected representative sample of users of water and sewerage services in England and Wales, and…consider any matters which the Commission refers to it in relation to water ownership.”
I want to be clear that that will be a randomly selected representative sample of users, and the Bill is silent on the model. I appreciate what the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) highlighted—that there is a science to doing this—but the Bill is silent on how it would be done.
Mark Ferguson
To return to the construction of citizens’ assemblies, I take on board the point about the concept that is being used locally, but when one has to travel 10 minutes to a meeting on an evening after work, it is a very different order of magnitude—
Mr Frith
I would not suggest that either the right hon. Gentleman or I should be in charge of the water in my constituency.
We need severe and automatic fines for illegal sewage discharges. There has been real-time monitoring by campaigners, as well as formal observations—I have referred to yesterday’s updates. We need criminal charges for water company executives who have overseen law breaking, and stricter environmental and consumer standards.
None of this should divide us, but our focus should be the ends, not the means. To bring failing companies to heel requires a degree of imagination, and we need to put public service first. To simply say that we should have public ownership of everything, without asking who pays and who takes the debt thereafter, does not require imagination. It is a failure to answer the challenge and the question.
Carla Denyer
The hon. Member has expressed concern about how public ownership would be paid for. Is he aware of the special administration regime for water companies? It was brought in last year and would substantially address these issues.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
I rise following a number of excellent and eloquent speeches, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler), who talked about flatulence, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), who talked about fatbergs. I hope to add some value, and also depth to some Members’ contributions.
Rivers are critical to our national identity. It is a pleasure to have the River Medway in my home constituency of Chatham and Aylesford. I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister visited the river a few weeks ago when she came to Southern Water’s Ham Hill plant. I also have the benefit of constituents who work, live and play on the river. It is on their behalf that I contribute to today’s debate, because whether or not we are passionate about our natural environment, in some way we are all here because of the shape of our landscape. I pay tribute to a number of organisations that lead in this space, including Watershed, which recently released a report; it is diligent in monitoring sewage releases across our country. Surfers Against Sewage, which a number of my colleagues have mentioned, does outstanding monitoring work, and River Action and Friends of the Earth have also engaged with me as a constituency MP.
All of us in this House are doing great advocacy work, alongside Feargal Sharkey and other passionate campaigners. That advocacy has directed the Government towards early implementation of a number of critical policies, and it needs to continue. I welcome that advocacy of those outside the House, and those viewing the debate. Continue being a strong voice on these issues.
Privatisation has failed. Private companies since the Thatcherite privatisation have not been regulated properly, and they have taken significant profits and passed them on in dividends to shareholders. The figure is up to £60 billion or £70 billion, by some calculations. Flooding, burst drains, rising costs and the bonus culture have all come together to create a system that has lost the confidence of not only the public, but the public politic of this country. Change absolutely needs to happen, which is why I welcomed the Government’s Water (Special Measures) Bill, which this Labour Government prioritised from September; it is one of the earliest pieces of legislation that we prioritised after our election. That, coupled with the series of reforms that are coming down the pipe, will bring about fundamental change in our water landscape. I look forward to seeing future reports on that.
The legislation that the Government are looking at will, together with other measures, fix a broken system. In their own words—we on the Government Benches all agree with them—the Government are trying to create a better and more sustainable future, greener and healthier rivers, and stronger governance in our water system. We can all agree that the Government are taking the right direction; it might be just the pace of change that is leading to frustration.
I want to set the debate in its broader context. My concern with this Bill is that we might be going down an ideological cul-de-sac, although I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South has said that he is open to mutuals and other types of co-operative management styles. The debate today has been fixated on national utilities versus private, and that is not entirely an honest debate; take Europe as an example.
Carla Denyer
It might be worth clarifying that, as far as I can tell—Hansard will prove whether I am right—the majority of the mentions of nationalisation were from Members opposing this Bill, whereas those who support it were talking about other models, including mutualisation and co-operatives.
Tristan Osborne
I am happy to take that criticism. I just say this—the hon. Member might like to come back on this—I understand from its manifesto that the Green party is for nationalised utilities. If she supports a citizens’ assembly, would the assembly’s conversation be narrowly confined to having a nationalised utility, or would she open discussion up to other forms of mutuals and other ways of working?
Moving on, this private versus state debate is not quite the issue it is made out to be. In Europe, there is a significant number of state-run utilities, and they have similar problems with pollution and outflows. The European water regulator has said that there is €75 billion of natural pollution and 37% of Europe’s surface water is in an unhealthy ecological condition. The reality is that that is happening under state utilities. The issue is not necessarily about what structures and bodies run water, albeit that I accept that privatised utilities have not worked in this country, but the regulations that they work with. The Government’s position is sensible and reasoned; they are handing the issue to a specialist, Sir Jon Cunliffe, who can give regulatory advice on how we can improve the system.
Moving on to the debate about people’s assemblies, I agree that they are a good idea. Let a thousand roses bloom. I am happy to receive representation from all bodies. If this people’s assembly is non-binding, I do not see the difference between it and any other group that will be engaging with us in a public space and in a public way. I do not see the necessity of having another non-binding body making recommendations via a structure that we would establish, because it would not have any more weight than any other non-binding body.
I understand that previously, national bodies and people’s assemblies have met in Birmingham over a series of weekends, but a lot of the proposed reforms are extremely technical. My worry is that political parties that have a mandate at a general election to either nationalise or not nationalise will simply tie the hands of people’s assemblies, binding them to an ideological viewpoint. That may not have a beneficial outcome. This House is the people’s assembly, so I do not believe that having non-binding institutions like those assemblies adds any value.
This Government are correct in their approach. If we hand responsibility to Sir Jon Cunliffe, he will be able to look at the issues in much more detail. As I have mentioned, regulatory reform is absolutely necessary, but he will also look at financial resilience—water companies have been able to borrow and leverage too much, which has had a significant impact on the cost of water for many people—and at nature-based solutions, which should be pursued more vigorously.
To conclude, we should wait and see what the independent water commission concludes. We should not make this into an ideological argument. Although people’s assemblies have a place, in this case they are non-binding and an unnecessary addition. I welcome other contributions.
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.
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.
Climate and Nature Bill
Carla Denyer ExcerptsFriday 24th January 2025
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Climate and Nature Bill 2024-26 View all Climate and Nature Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie
I will not. I have given way a few times and other Members want to speak, so I want to make some progress.
Aligning to the targets, which the Bill would oblige the Secretary of State to achieve, would require even more drastic action to reduce emissions. The Secretary of State has already signed the country up to an even stricter target of cutting emissions by 81% by 2035—something the Climate Change Committee said will require people to eat less meat and dairy, take fewer flights, and swap their boilers for heat pumps and their petrol cars for electric vehicles at a pace that will require taxes and mandation. That is not sensible, nor is it feasible.
Let us turn to the objective to include import emissions in the scope of our carbon budgets. Zero Hour correctly identifies that the current carbon budget system focuses on territorial emissions, rather than consumption emissions—in other words, we count the carbon emissions of what is produced within our own borders, rather than the carbon emissions of products that are produced overseas, shipped in and then used within the UK. Some may think that underplays our true contribution to global emissions, and they may have a point, because if we shut down our oil and gas sector, for example—as the Labour party seemingly wants to do—that will not mean that we consume any less oil or gas; it will just mean that we ship it in from overseas as liquefied natural gas, which has four times the carbon emissions in the production process. We may have reduced our territorial carbon emissions and stuck to our carbon budgets, but we would actually be increasing our carbon emissions overall. That, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) likes to say, is carbon accounting gone mad.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
Does the shadow Minister recognise that the point he makes about emissions from imports not being counted rather undermines the point he was making earlier, when he boasted about the territorial emissions that were reduced when he was in government, which may be the very point that the sponsors of the Bill are trying to make?
Andrew Bowie
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, but how do we get away from the problem of double accounting for those emissions? If, for example, India is counting them as part of its global emissions and we start to count them too, in addition to what we are doing within our borders, how will we ever get an accurate picture of emissions across the globe? If we were to take into consideration the global effect of our consumption emissions and the carbon footprint of what we import, the British people would soon realise that there is no way to decarbonise consumption as rapidly as possible, as the Bill seeks, without a huge economic challenge, and that is not recognised in the Bill.
That brings me to the next aspect of the Bill: the requirement—not just the ambition—that the UK ends
“the exploration, extraction, export and import of fossil fuels…as rapidly as possible.”
I am sorry to say that that is not a serious proposal. Even the Climate Change Committee has said that oil and gas will remain a crucial part of our energy mix for decades to come—something that the Secretary of State and his Ministers have accepted. As we have been saying, turning off the taps in the North sea will result only in higher imports—something the Labour Government seemingly accept.
But even worse, the Bill would require us not only to completely end domestic exploration and production, but to end the import of fossil fuels. Just this week, on Wednesday, gas power stations provided 65% of the UK’s electricity. Just 2% came from wind power and 1% came from solar. If the Bill is successful and we end not just the extraction but the import of all fossil fuels as rapidly as possible, MPs who are backing it will have to explain how we keep the lights on when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.
Andrew Bowie
I will make progress, because I know more Members wish to speak. When the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, we simply do not have the technology available—we do not have enough clean power from batteries or long-duration electricity storage—to meet demand. That speaks to the major contradiction in the Bill: it talks about protecting the British countryside from development, but it would require an incredible roll-out—at pace and scale unprecedented—of renewable technologies, pylons, substations and battery storage facilities.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
Last week, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and I were invited to see a play called “Kyoto”. [Interruption.] It looks like other Ministers were also there; I did not spot them. The play tells the story of the international climate negotiations in Kyoto, including the pivotal role that the late great John Prescott played in working collaboratively to forge a binding agreement between countries with vastly different politics and that agreed about very little. I found the play so moving and inspiring, and I thought I saw that the Secretary of State did, too. The next morning, I wrote to him, asking if he would be willing to have a call with me about this Bill and how we might be able to work together. I did that because this crisis is too big and too existential to leave to a party machinery whose prime motivation seems to be simply to be seen to win, as we saw reported in the news yesterday.
This Bill was first tabled by the first Green MP, Caroline Lucas, four years ago. It is and always has been a chance for collaborative, cross-party endeavour. It is supported by many of the Government’s Back Benchers, and the Labour party itself pledged agreement with its principles not long ago. If the Government support it today, they will share in the credit of its success. We will all win if the Bill goes into Committee and emerges as strong as possible, supported across the House.
I understand that the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) has agreed not to push it to a vote today, in exchange, it seems, for just a meeting with the Secretary of State for Energy and Net Zero and a video, with an agreement to work together but with no specific commitments. That is her decision. [Interruption.] Let me continue, please. That is her decision. I am sad about it, but I wish her well and hope it works out.
However, Madam Deputy Speaker, I cannot tell you how disappointed I was, and how disappointed millions of people will be, to learn how the Government have behaved. They ignored the CAN Bill campaign for months, only finally agreeing to meet its promoter 10 days before this debate—coming to the negotiation table with almost nothing new, demanding a promise not to push the Bill it to a vote in exchange for no regulation, no legislation, no new targets. That is peanuts. After 10 days of negotiation, incredibly, the offers got worse—until, late last night, the best that the Government could offer was a meeting with the Secretary of State, a non-specific offer to work together, and a video.
The climate is why I got into politics and I am not giving up that easily, so I have stood up today to say to the Government, “Please, give us real commitments, binding decisions, legislation, timetables and consequences.” The existing legislation to which the Government are working is based on science that is out of date, taking us back to a time when we thought that 2°C was a safe level of warming. It takes no account of the emissions from products and services that we import, no account of emissions from aviation and shipping, and no account of emissions from other greenhouse gases such as methane. In other words, it chooses not to count the tricky stuff and then slaps itself on the back for doing so jolly well at the easy stuff, and, as we have heard over and over again today, it does not join up climate and nature legislation or policy in any way.
So I say to the Government again, “Please, please commit yourselves to real, binding, bold legislation that reflects the way in which the science has evolved since the Climate Change Act 2008, which was groundbreaking in its day but which has now been superseded by the climate science.” If they will not do so, I, as one of the Bill’s sponsors, will take this Second Reading to a vote. If they really think that they can look their constituents and their children in the eye—
Carla Denyer
I would like to finish this point. If the Government really think that they can look their constituents and their children in the eye and say, “Look, we couldn’t help it; there was party politics; I had to think of my career,” I say to them, “Go ahead.”
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I, too, have seen “Kyoto”, and I have spent 20 years attending all the climate negotiations. Given that the hon. Member has spoken about cross-party consensus and the need to build the necessary political momentum, will she show respect for the huge efforts made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage)? She did receive commitments that will enable us to move forward—not at the pace that we want, but together—and I am very worried about the way in which the hon. Member is undermining the efforts that have been made to move forward with this.
Carla Denyer
I do have a huge amount of respect for the hon. Member for South Cotswolds, who has worked incredibly hard over the years—decades—as an environment campaigner, and for months since she first proposed this Bill.
Carla Denyer
I want to make some progress. I respect the hon. Member’s choice, although I disagree with it and I am sad about it. This Bill has been going for four years and has had cross-party support throughout. The position of the lead proposer on this iteration of the Bill is to accept a negotiation without specific promises. My position is that stronger negotiation and getting the Bill to Committee stage is needed—
Several hon. Members rose—
Carla Denyer
I anticipate that I will answer many of the points that hon. Members want to make, so I will make a little progress.
Even I do not love every clause of the revised version of the Bill. I would prefer its climate target to make explicit reference to the 1.5° limit and the UK’s fair contribution towards it. I very strongly disagree with the last-minute insertion of a presumption against large renewable projects, which was made without consulting the co-proposers. But the fundamental principles of the Bill are sound: laws based on the science, tackling climate and nature as one and doing things with people, not to people. It has the level of ambition that the science demands. It contains enough positive measures for me to give it my full support, putting aside my differences about those points.
In the debate on Second Reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, we heard powerful arguments about how it could be improved, but the House voted for it to progress because there was an agreement that it warranted further scrutiny, including potential amendments. The same applies today. If Members agree with the principles but want to change some specifics, let us debate that. In that case, I ask them not to block the Bill today, but to join me in voting for Second Reading and then to debate together, on a cross-party basis, how to make it better together.
Carla Denyer
I am on my final sentence. Let us set aside party allegiances for a moment. We can show bold leadership together.
Dr Savage
I admire the hon. Member’s passion and commitment to the cause. I am afraid I was not in the Chamber to hear the beginning of her speech, but from what I have been able to gather, let me take the opportunity to set the record straight. I very much believe that we do need cross-party consensus. I have been willing and eager to have conversations with the Government. I have been an environmental campaigner for the last 20 years. I have tried the placard-waving and I have marched in the streets. That has an important role to play, but there is a reason that I chose to come to this place: to take the policy approach. As the third party, the only way we can do that is by working with the Government.
Carla Denyer
With the greatest of respect to the hon. Member, taking a Bill containing binding legislation to Committee stage for line-by-line scrutiny is not placard-waving. Voting for the Bill today is voting for a liveable future. I hope that is what we all choose.
Environmental Protection
Carla Denyer Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Gentleman knows of what he speaks, and of course I accept that there is wonderful variation across our whole country. That is precisely why I chose two neighbouring authorities. What could be easier than collecting from dense urban areas, compared with the challenges and costs of having to collect waste across far-flung rural communities such as those I represent? Perhaps later we will hear the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) explain exactly why that council, which drove itself into the ground, has such a poor record on recycling.
Carla Denyer
As the MP for Bristol Central, I cannot speak directly on behalf of councillors for Brighton and Hove, other than to point out that my understanding is that their hands were tied by a deal that was agreed by the previous Labour administration
Andrew Griffith
I hate to intrude on socialist grief, so let me move on.
Business leaders make decisions only when they have considered the context of all external factors, so it is important—I hope the Government agree—that we consider the statutory instrument in the context of the current headwinds faced by British business.
Right now, businesses across the land are working through the tough choices they will have to make to keep their businesses viable in the face of this Government’s job-killing, investment-crushing, growth-destroying Budget, because of choices this Government have made. It was this Government who chose to place enormous burdens on business with their new tax on jobs. It was this Government who chose to halve business rates relief for retail and hospitality. It is this Government who are choosing to push through their Employment Rights Bill, which will increase unemployment, as we saw today, and prevent young people from ever getting their first chance of a job. Business confidence has been knocked down and jobs are at risk, and it is no surprise when we consider that not a single person sat around the Cabinet table has real experience of running a business.
No sectors have been hit harder than retail and hospitality. The British Retail Consortium has said how Labour’s Budget will increase inflation, slow pay growth, cause shop closures—the very shops that will have to participate in this scheme—and reduce jobs. The CBI has said that retail businesses have gone into “crisis containment”. The Institute of Directors found that economic confidence has fallen for a fourth month running—does anyone know what those four months have in common? The number of businesses closing has increased by 64% since the Budget. That is the shocking reality and the context in which the Government seek to bring forward today’s statutory instrument, putting more burdens and more cost on business.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I and the Green party welcome this scheme; however, I am disappointed to see a deposit return scheme that does not include glass. Implementing a deposit return scheme that includes glass is really not unprecedented; it is absolutely possible. In fact, there are around 50 schemes around the world, 46 of which include glass. The remaining four do not, but that is only because there is a separate glass scheme. While I welcome the progress, which I am sure will help, will the Government look at this again, and work closely with the Welsh Government to see how glass can be included?
On a tangentially related note, I want to quickly respond to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), who appears to have stepped out of the Chamber. Since my response to him earlier, a resident of Brighton and Hove has been in touch—the hon. Member may regret having raised this—to explain that the 25-year private finance initiative deal that Brighton and Hove council was locked into, which heavily restricted the range of products that could be recycled, was originally brought in by a Labour Administration, but was later extended by a Conservative one.
Sewage Discharges: South West
Carla Denyer Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ben Maguire
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I will outline some of the measures I will put to the Minister.
I urge the Government to go much further by scrapping Ofwat, which has proven itself to be toothless and missing in action. The Liberal Democrats would replace Ofwat with a much more powerful clean water authority, which could ban bonuses for water company bosses who fail to stop sewage dumping, revoke licences of poorly performing water companies immediately, force water firms to publish the full volume and scale of their sewage dumping, mandate local environmental experts to sit on water company boards, and set legally binding targets on sewage discharges.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way and for bringing this debate before the House. On the question of public ownership, does he think that the independent commission on the water sector regulatory system might be better off if it were tasked with at least considering how public ownership of water companies might work, rather than the current situation, in which this supposedly independent commission has been banned from considering one of the possible solutions to the problem?
Ben Maguire
The hon. Member raises an important point about independence. As was covered briefly earlier, that consultation will be a very important part of this process.
Lib Dem amendments have recently been tabled in the other place to empower the regulator to revoke water company licences in the face of repeated failures and, crucially, to make it a criminal offence for water companies to fail to implement pollution reduction plans, holding senior managers personally and criminally liable. In the last Parliament, my Liberal Democrat colleagues in this place also tabled an amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill that would have created a sewage illness victim compensation scheme. Under that scheme, where medical evidence is provided to support a claim, proper compensation would be payable by water companies to their victims, such as three-year-old Finley and his family. I take this opportunity to plead with the Minister, on behalf of all my constituents, to seriously consider these measures so that water companies are finally held accountable, with no more excuses and no more delays.
Picking up on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) earlier, EDMs—not electronic dance music or early-day motions, but event duration monitors—that are fitted to storm overflow tanks only measure the number and duration of spills, not the volume. There have also been reports of faults with those EDMs, which could represent a serious under-reporting of sewage spills, significantly skewing the data. That could mean that the situation is far worse than we thought. Whatever enforcement approach is taken by the Government against water companies, the accuracy of the data will be crucial, so I ask the Minister to please consider the accuracy of the current monitoring system.
When I took my seat in this place, I promised my constituents that I would always speak truth to power. In a previous career, I advised businesses and their leaders. If I could offer some advice here and now to the chief executive of South West Water, I would say, “Please do the decent thing and go now.” In what other universe could a chief executive preside over such a record of abject failure? With Ms Davy having been the chief finance officer since 2015 and then the chief executive since 2020, almost 10 years of failed leadership have brought us to this diabolical situation. How on earth can anyone now have confidence that South West Water will miraculously turn things around in the next five years?
Ms Davy declined to take a bonus last year, instead adding that bonus amount to her base salary, which at last count was a whopping £860,000. Before Members start worrying about South West Water’s shareholders, they too were awarded a generous dividend of 44p per share. This is all while water bills are rocketing, children are getting severely sick as a result of that greed, and people everywhere are too afraid to enjoy the beaches and rivers that make Cornwall and the wider south-west so uniquely special. As a society, at what point do we come together and say that this has to stop, for the sake of our children and the sake of us all? Well, I humbly suggest that that point has now long passed.