Water Bill

Debate between Carla Denyer and Tristan Osborne

2nd reading
Friday 28th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.