Fishing Industry

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Torcuil Crichton]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and politely decline his offer to stand for the Scottish Parliament, because Na h-Eileanan an Iar has an excellent candidate in Donald MacKinnon. Next May he will wipe out the SNP and give us a real voice for the islands, which have not been listened to in 18 years.

We have much to agree on when it comes to the share of the fishing and coastal growth fund, and I remind the hon. Member that the fund will be there for a decade. What is past is past, and without rancour, we could work together through the fisheries APPG and other organisations to ensure that more of this fund goes to our coastal communities, and particularly our fragile inshore coastal communities that need support—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Interventions should not be that long.

[Seamus Logan]

The hon. Member will know that, in reality, we do work very well together in the APPG under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn). I accept the point about the fishing and coastal growth fund. I think he agrees with me that we need a review of that decision, but I will come back to that later.

Why did the Westminster Government change the approach and Barnettise the formula? Many of my constituents think it is because there are no votes for Labour and there is no prospect of ever winning another seat north of the Tay, alongside perhaps the seat of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar. I can tell the Minister that that is not going to change any time soon with this approach, because this Government are stealing our money to prop up their failing support in coastal communities in England.

A recent freedom of information request revealed that the Secretary of State for Scotland had made no effort—zero effort—to lobby the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to discuss a fairer and proportionate allocation, given Scotland’s massive contribution to our food sector. What is the point of the UK Government’s Scotland Office if it does not stand up for Scotland?

Finally, as if the above were not enough, visa restrictions by the Home Office have been suffocating the growth of fishing in Scotland. Key sector stakeholders have raised concerns about the changes to visas coming into force at the end of this year and the impact this will have, particularly on processing. Their concerns about visa provision extend to hiring workers for operations within the 12 nautical mile limit, given the overlap in fishing grounds. I appreciate that this is not within the Minister’s brief, but I would be grateful for clarity from her, or at least for her to tell us that she is lobbying the Home Office on this point, so that people and industries in my constituency can thrive and contribute to our growing economy. But please do not try to tell us that we need to hire local people. This mythical workforce sitting at home twiddling their thumbs simply does not exist. We are at full employment in my constituency, and efforts to recruit young people into this industry are simply not working—just ask Mike Park at the Scottish White Fish Producers Association.

The future of fishing in Scotland is at a precarious stage, and I want to use this opportunity to plead with the UK Government: please listen to the Scottish Government, to the Scottish fishing industry and to fishermen and women to get this right. One more U-turn will not make much difference to this Government, considering the number they have already made, but it will make the world of difference to fishing and coastal communities in Scotland. It is not too late to give Scotland a fair deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am an unpaid director of the Newhaven Fishing community interest company. As such, I see at first hand what is happening to our local fishing industry, and I rise to talk specifically about the impact on our town.

In Newhaven, we have a small but long-standing fleet, and our fishing heritage is under threat. We have between 15 and 20 active vessels working out of Newhaven, catching sole, plaice, brill, turbot and other bits and pieces off our Sussex coast. Much of that fish goes elsewhere for processing, to all corners of the UK and beyond, before it ends up coming back to our plates. We are exporting those jobs, increasing emissions and missing the chance to build our local economy and invest in a small part of the Government’s growth agenda. I believe that has to change.

We want our fish processed locally, and jobs created in coastal communities, rather than fish being shipped abroad and coming back again—and sometimes then going back abroad and back here once more. The recent plans to bring processing back to Newhaven are exactly what we should be doing nationwide, but that needs long-term commitment from the Government, if it is to stick.

In the meantime, we are losing our fishing community. The charter boat fleet that historically brought customers to Newhaven’s tackle shops, pubs and restaurants all year around has almost completely disappeared. A constituent of mine runs the last charter company in Newhaven. During recent works at the port, he was forced to relocate temporarily, but was promised that he could return. Now he has been told that he cannot come back, despite Government funding for a new pontoon, supposedly for the fishing fleet. That is the kind of bureaucratic nonsense that puts marginal businesses into receivership and brings generational businesses, like his and many others in our town, to an end, in some cases after decades or even hundreds of years of operation. When we invest in coastal infrastructure, it should support the entire fishing community, including commercial vessels and charter boats that bring economic activity to our towns. Both are vital to a thriving coastal economy.

We have been successful in attracting Government investment to support the local fishing industry in Newhaven, with some £12 million for new landing stages, and for processing and other facilities in the town. My thanks go to Lewes district council and my predecessor, Maria Caulfield, who supported the bid for that funding, which has been essential to giving our fishing industry in Newhaven a chance—just a chance—of surviving and thriving in the future. However, we need to do far more to support our fishing businesses if they are to be sustainable in the long term.

Here is what is really at stake. Without new people entering the industry, small independent businesses will disappear. They will be replaced by massive multinational companies and EU mega-trawlers that disrupt our wildlife, deplete our fish stocks and send their catches to distant markets. In our case, many are flagged to the Netherlands. We will lose local jobs and an industry on which communities like ours depend.

Our local fishing businesses are largely family affairs, with one generation taking on the business from another. It is a tough and sometimes very dangerous job. In November 2020, our community was shocked to wake up to the news that the Joanna C trawler had sunk off Newhaven, tragically taking the lives of two fishermen. It was a reminder of the risks that our fishing boats taking every day in unpredictable seas. I should take a moment to pay tribute to our local Royal National Lifeboat Institution crews, based out of Newhaven, and the volunteers at our local Coastwatch who do incredible work trying to keep our fishermen and other sailors safe.

The Government must acknowledge that support for small fishing businesses to encourage more young people to see fishing as an attractive career choice is essential for the future vibrancy of the industry. There is a real danger that we will continue to fund an industry that simply does not have the people to continue it, and it will end up withering on the vine.

We want a different future for the industry. We need to slash the red tape that is strangling our fishing industry and invest in coastal infrastructure—not just by building pontoons, although that is important for our town, but by ensuring that our infrastructure serves the communities that it is meant to support. We need to give coastal towns the power and resources to develop their fishing economies and attract young workers, working in concert with local schools and colleges to build a skills base for the future, not just for our fishing industry but in many of our deprived coastal communities, where a skills base is lacking. They could take advantage of some of the opportunities being created by investments in our local fishing industry and others.

We must put sustainability at the heart of everything we do. We need to work hand in glove with the fishing industry to look carefully at the impact on marine protected areas and ensure that protections for sustainability do not cause catastrophic harm for the businesses that we seek to support.

We must rebuild depleted fish stocks. In the distance, we can often see massive Dutch trawlers operating off our coast. They hoover fish out of the sea and deplete stocks, meaning that our own fishermen—predominantly line-and-pole fishermen—cannot catch anything when they go out to fish. That is soul-destroying for people who are already in a very challenging industry.

We must ensure that fishing stock negotiations after 2026 get proper democratic scrutiny, as several hon. Members have mentioned. That is because the Conservatives’ Brexit threw our industry into chaos. Unfortunately, the Government let that happen again when they extended fishing rights to the EU for 10 more years—and for what? Nothing but some general commitments to negotiate further down the line.

Newhaven has fished its waters since the 1580s. Some fishing families have worked there for over 200 years; indeed, some of their names are known to pretty much everybody in the town. It is a close-knit community. We have local fish shops, plans for new restaurants and a community that wants to buy local catch, but right now we have a local fleet that is struggling even to stay in business.

My coastal communities are not an afterthought. They are the frontline of our food security, our environmental stewardship and our cultural heritage. We must deliver a fair deal for fishers, with real investment and sustainable practices, working with Government. I would be remiss not to take the opportunity to extend the Minister an invitation to come down to Sussex by the sea and visit our fleet in Newhaven.

Too often, very small fleets like ours can be overlooked in discussions about the fishing industry. In his excellent introductory speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) mentioned how fishing is sometimes treated as a homogeneous industry in which all areas are the same. Our small fishing fleet is as worthy of protection as any other, but it can be easily overlooked in wider discussions about the larger industry. I want communities like Newhaven’s to have the power to control their own future, with a thriving fishing industry at its heart.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before the Front-Bench speeches begin, may I extend a warm welcome to the Minister of Education in Ontario, who has been in the Chamber listening to hon. Members’ contributions? I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this important debate and on his powerful speech. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding the time for today’s debate.

The UK’s fishing industry is central to our national economy. It contributes more than £1.4 billion annually and supports more than 11,000 fishers. However, despite the sector’s economic value, the industry post Brexit continues to face numerous challenges. It has insufficient Government support and has been left to fight an uphill battle against environmental neglect and regulatory stagnation. The previous Government’s ill-conceived Brexit deal has had a negative impact on the UK fishing industry and has created deep uncertainty about its future. Our fishing communities feel unrepresented and anxious about the industry’s future economic viability.

Within the terms of the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement post-Brexit, UK fishing became subject to a number of regulations. It is unbelievable that the current Government’s Ministers have, in effect, agreed to continue with the Conservative plan for fishing, subjecting the industry to another 12 years of neglect through the agreement reached at last May’s UK-EU reset summit, as EU boats will now have access to our waters until 2038. The Liberal Democrats hoped that the summit would provide the opportunity for a reset that would benefit our fishing industry, but it just got more of the same. We believe that if the Government had been more ambitious and sought to secure a new customs union, better benefits would have been secured for our fishing industry.

Although it is positive that a comprehensive agreement has been secured across trade and defence, the Government must work with our fishing industry to understand the impact that the extension will have. Greater co-operation is necessary, given that the raft of regulatory changes to the EU applies to all vessels, but fishers do not feel supported by the Government or by the Marine Management Organisation, which gave the industry just five days’ notice of changes. Poor communication regarding new gear marking and catch reporting has only furthered confusion and uncertainty in the industry.

The sewage scandal that has blighted our waters for far too long urgently needs addressing. Although Glastonbury and Somerton is landlocked, it is home to diverse watercourses, including the Rivers Brue and Parrett, which offer excellent fishing for local anglers. Upstream towards Bruton, the River Brue supports local trout fishing, while further downstream around Glastonbury and towards Highbridge, the River Parrett is dominated by coarse fishing such as for roach, chub, perch and pike. Both rivers are valued ecological areas for our local communities and our region’s biodiversity, but our watercourses have not been left untouched by pollution, with the River Parrett in Langport experiencing 54 separate sewage spills in 2023, amounting to 453 hours of pollution. Devastatingly, in 2025 alone, all the water- courses in my constituency were subjected to more than 45,000 hours of pollution. Across the wider—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Lady will know that the debate is on the fishing industry, not on sewage pollution of rivers per se. Perhaps she would like to return to the subject of fishing.

[Sarah Dyke]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The impact on coastal communities is even more severe and economically damaging. The House will know that fishing waters in Cornwall, including in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), have been greatly affected by pollution, with many forced to close after high levels of E. coli were found in locally sourced oysters and mussels. For local shellfish growers, the actions of unresponsive and irresponsible water companies have destroyed consumer confidence in locally sourced fish, decimating demand and threatening the viability of local producers across many coastal regions.

Despite the desperate pleas of our coastal communities, the inaction of both the previous Conservative Government and the current Labour Government has resulted in a shocking increase in pollution incidents, which were up 27% last year. The Liberal Democrats have been very clear that tougher regulations must be delivered to prevent raw sewage spillages into our waterways. The Government’s White Paper, which was published on Tuesday, contains some welcome measures, but it does not go far enough—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I will not make this point again. This is a debate on the fishing industry. The hon. Lady has made her point about pollution.

[Sarah Dyke]

Let me return briefly to Somerset—this is relevant, Madam Deputy Speaker. The European eel was once a key part of the county’s identity. It was so abundant that it even served as the local currency, and it was the most economically significant part of Somerset’s fishing sector. The presence of this keystone species is said to be the leading indicator for the health of our wetland, river and natural habitats.

Unsurprisingly, the European eel is currently deemed a critically endangered species, with a 90% drop in its population since the 1980s owing to habitat loss and migration barriers. The Somerset Eel Recovery Project, founded by Vanessa Becker- Hughes, is leading community efforts to restore the county’s local eel population through conservation and cultural efforts, but despite its best efforts, its work is not bringing the significant changes that it would like. Removing barriers and installing passes is essential for the species’ survival, which is dependent on migration. By balancing conservation efforts with sustainable fishing, we can secure the stability of the sector and more of us can enjoy the culinary delicacy that is eel.

Across the wider south-west, we are seeing a stark decline in fish species along our coastal areas. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), the octopus bloom of last year has led to an 80% decline in crab catch—a decline so significant that it is forcing local fishers to consider early retirement or career changes because they are unable to make ends meet. Fishers in South Devon and across the south-west need greater support from the Government to stay in business while they learn to adapt to these concerning ecological changes, and they require flexibility on catch licences in order to remain in business.

Last May, the Liberal Democrats welcomed the Government’s announcement of a £360 million fishing and coastal growth fund after the industry had been let down consistently by nearly a decade of successive Conservative Governments. The current Government must not follow the example of the Conservatives. For a lasting impact to be realised through greater investment, our coastal towns must be given a voice in how the money is spent.

This vital funding should not be spent on generic community assets such as benches and public facilities in coastal towns. It must be appropriately targeted to empower our fishing communities, providing them with greater powers and resources to invest in coastal infra- structure and services. Through delivering a comprehensive plan for spreading economic opportunity, the Liberal Democrats would ensure that the fund supports initiatives to enhance awareness of the career opportunities in the sector and strengthen skills to retain workers and, crucially, attract younger workers to support future growth.

It is clear that our fishing and coastal communities cannot afford another decade of neglect. The previous Conservative Government left our fishers in the lurch and hung out to dry, while the current Government have failed to grasp the opportunity to secure a genuine reset that would provide both stability and opportunity. Instead, they have chosen to continue with a botched Brexit deal for the industry until 2038. Our fishing industry deserves better.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Agricultural Sector: Import Standards

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

In Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, agriculture is a key part of our local economy and our identity. The Isle of Axholme alone consists of 50,000 acres and is characterised by a mix of intensive agricultural land, including significant arable land, and a historical, unique system of open-field strip farming, particularly around parishes such as Haxey and Epworth. One farmer in Ealand categorically assures me that we have the best soil for growing the tastiest spuds in the world—so for the Burns night festivities this weekend, Madam Deputy Speaker, you know where to shop for neeps and tatties.

No one takes up life as a farmer because they want an easy time. Farming is hard. Farmers pour their heart and soul into their land; I know that from my wife’s family. I see it from my window at home: they are up before the break of dawn and out after the owls have emerged. My farmers meet the rules—they pay for assurance, inspections and traceability—but when the time comes to sell their crops, their meat and their products, they find that they are not on a level playing field. They are undercut by imports produced to lower standards at a lower cost. That is just not right.

Over the past year or so, I have spent a significant amount of time understanding the issue. I have been out with farmers in my constituency. I have visited farms across Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, have attended roundtables with local farmers and have held surgeries. I have attended farmers’ shows, markets and fairs and have hosted several here in Westminster. I hope soon to meet representatives of Epworth and District young farmers club, which is raising money for the Yorkshire air ambulance and the Lindsey Lodge hospice. In the autumn, I will attend the first ever Isle country show. I have spent time listening directly to the concerns that farmers have raised. Today, I want to feed back clearly to the Minister what they are telling me and what we can do to support them. I will give some examples that they have shared with me.

Let us start with grain. Grain merchants can import grain that is not Red Tractor-assured. Too often, it arrives without the paperwork that we would expect for something that goes into our food chain. UK grain is grown to higher standards. That really matters, but our grain also costs more to produce, so when imports come in cheaper it drives prices below UK production costs. When UK-assured grain is then bulked out with imported grain, it makes a mockery of the premium that our farmers have earned through the quality of their production.

We can grow excellent potatoes in this country, yet we are seeing vast quantities being imported from as far as Portugal, simply to shave costs. That is madness when we factor in the distance, the carbon and the message that it sends to domestic producers who are doing the right thing day in, day out. It is the same story with beef. When we import beef produced to lower welfare standards at a scale that drives down unit costs, we are effectively punishing British farmers for maintaining higher welfare standards and traceability.

There are double standards on crop protection. Oilseed rape became far harder to grow successfully here after key plant protection products were banned, leaving growers exposed to pests such as cabbage stem flea beetles, yet imported crops can be treated with products that our farmers are not allowed to use. That is not a level playing field; it is a tilted one. I will keep repeating that point.

Finally, I turn to sugar. We have sugar beet growers close to processing plants in this country who sustain jobs and local supply chains, yet sugar cane can be imported from countries in which it has been treated with chemicals that are banned here, and then be processed in the UK. I am told that it then ends up on our supermarket shelves with packaging covered in a Union flag that implies British provenance.

I call on the Government to do three things for our farming community; I would love the Minister to respond if she can. We need stronger equivalence in our import standards: if a product cannot be produced here under the rules, it should not be able to undercut our farmers on our shelves. We need robust enforcement and paperwork checks at the border, because standards on paper are meaningless without compliance in practice. We need honest, clear labelling that protects British trademarks and gives consumers the information they need, not marketing that blurs the origin or standards of what they are buying.

UK farmers are frequently inspected, licensed and held to higher welfare and environmental rules. That approach delivers food that is safe, traceable and trusted. The least we can do is ensure that our trade and import regime rewards their efforts rather than undermining them. Let us help our farmers to plough their fields successfully in future by levelling the playing field for them right now.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Ann Davies.

Water Supplies: East Grinstead

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

About 16,500 residents have been impacted as a result of the latest water outage. GPs and schools have shut; vulnerable people, including those in care homes, are unable to access water; and people have been forced to queue for hours at water distribution sites. Unfortunately for customers of South East Water, this has become a trend: over the last five years, the company has ranked within the bottom three for water supply interruptions.

Experts have stated that the potential for water shortages in the area has long been known, but terrible strategic planning, a failure to cut leakage and decisions to divert money towards dividends have distracted from infrastructure improvements that should have been prioritised. Does the Minister agree with the Liberal Democrats that the continued tenure of South East Water’s chief executive officer is untenable, given the scale, duration and repetition of these serious failures? Will the Government commit to a full, independent investigation into South East Water’s operational resilience, governance and crisis management?

On behalf of myself and my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I offer my condolences to the Minister on the terrible and sad loss of her father.

Rural Communities

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Samantha Niblett]

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way—although he is perhaps slightly less honourable because he has made false accusations about some of my colleagues, who absolutely did not do what was said.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Would the hon. Lady like to withdraw that comment?

[Samantha Niblett]

I suppose so—for inadvertently calling the right hon. Member dishonourable.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I would like to think that the hon. Lady is not disrespecting me in that comment.

[Samantha Niblett]

I am certainly not disrespecting you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I do apologise if it came across that way. I wish to apologise to the right hon. Member if I have offended him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joy Morrissey]

My hon. Friend makes a wonderful point that the Government are not just destroying the places where people go, but the pubs in the village where everyone comes together. They are destroying the local community, with no regard for something that we saved during covid and kept alive this entire time, only to die a death for what? I am not sure. Is it for ideological reasons? It is hard to say.

The Government have gone for the economic livelihoods of our rural communities; now they are coming for their traditions and character. I am a passionate animal lover. I care deeply about animals and animal welfare standards. I can therefore say with total certainty that the proposed ban on trail hunting is not about animals or their welfare; it is about petty, vindictive ideology and this Government’s pathological dislike of rural communities. Now we find this Parliament in the absurd position of being asked to ban something that does not even involve hunting or killing animals. There has just been a debate in Ireland and they voted against a ban on hunting after a sensible debate, but not here.

We have to come to the real question—the unanswered question—on animal welfare: what exactly do the Government think is going to happen to the 170 packs of hounds in England when they are no longer in use? What is going to happen to the 20,000 hounds and numerous horses if the trail hunting ban goes through? Let us be brutally honest: many of them will be destroyed. If you have a hound, have you ever tried to have it domesticated? Have you tried to have a harrier—[Interruption.] No, please, I insist on you trying to have a hound come to your home and stay with you for a week. It is impossible. Put the blood of those hounds and those horses on your heads because you want to stand in ideological purity—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. There is an awful lot of “you”. I hope those comments are not being addressed at me.

[Joy Morrissey]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a very important topic and I am so sorry that I was carried away.

I feel that the Government do not really care about animal welfare. They do not care because they want to double down on attacking the English rural way of life. English rural traditions going back centuries are being sacrificed on the altar of left-wing student political ideology. Rural economies and livelihoods are being ruined. I say to this Government: “You will fail in your attempt to destroy the English countryside and our rural communities. They will outlast you and they will recover from the damage you do to them, but they will never forgive you.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Gelderd]

I will give way—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Lady is out of time now. I call Cameron Thomas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better than that. He should refer to the right hon. Gentleman as the Minister.

[Mike Reader]

Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The farming productivity review is very clear: if we want a sustainable rural economy, we can do much more to unlock its potential. Planning is one of the areas that we can look to tackle. A farmer can spend millions of hours filling in mountains of paperwork to build new sheds, slurry pits or barns to support better welfare, but our planning system does not support our farmers, the livestock that they keep or the British public, who love what they buy from their supermarkets, butchers and cafés.

As set out in the paper “Yes In My Farm Yard”, which I delivered with the YIMBY Initiative and with support from the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), we have identified some clear recommendations as to how the Government can help to reduce paperwork and speed up rural development; I will share a few of them. Through the permitted development regime, this Labour Government can put down instruments to improve part 6 of the regime by abolishing height and volume restrictions on land and machinery improvements.

We can change and expand class R regulations to improve anaerobic digestion and storage for digestates, which will help to enhance the circular economy for fertilisers, reduce our reliance on Russia and other states that we get our fertilisers from, and lower river pollution. We can also expand class Q regulations to natural landscapes to ensure that our farmers can build small, sensible and sustainable settlements for their agricultural workers, who in turn can protect these precious environments. Those are all practical steps that will help rural businesses to diversify and bring long-term stability to rural economies.

I am really pleased to see that many of the recommendations in our paper are broadly supported in the Batters review into farming profitability, which has also endorsed some of the policies in the paper. I encourage Ministers at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to bring forward these planning changes and let our yimby farming communities—or should that be yimfy farming communities?—say, “Yes In My Farm Yard”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of time. I call Harriet Cross.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am really grateful to have been called to speak in today’s debate. In any other week, I would focus on more substantive day-to-day, week-to-week rural matters such as the family farm tax. I am grateful that there has been a partial U-turn on the tax, but it should not have taken this long. It should not have taken the pain, frustration and hurt that it caused our farming and rural communities. The Government must go further—we must get a full U-turn. We have to protect our rural communities. There is a reason why over 6,200 farming, agricultural and forestry businesses have closed since this Government came to power. It is not just farms that are impacted by the family farm tax; it is our rural communities as a whole, including the suppliers and contractors. They are all important, they are all part of our rural matrix, and they are all being let down by the family farm tax.

Given the snow this week in north-east Scotland and Aberdeenshire, I will focus on what is happening there, and on support for our rural communities. Aberdeenshire is the fourth-lowest-funded council in Scotland, and the lowest-funded rural council. Because of that, Aberdeenshire council has had to make awful decisions in recent years on the provision of services. Many of those focused on our roads, gritting and winter preparedness, and we are seeing the results of that.

Aberdeenshire is under not a dusting of snow, but a few feet of snow. Our farmers are literally walking through waist-deep snow to dig their sheep and livestock out of snowdrifts. They are then getting in their tractors to clear the roads for communities. They are bringing people who are stuck and who need medical attention in their cabs to the main roads to try to get them to hospital. Our rural communities pull together in times of need and when it is time to take action, and they have done that for years. They will keep doing that, and they deserve our support, but support is not enough. We must ensure that rural communities are properly funded and supported, and able to act and prepare for situations like this.

I end with a thank you to everyone in Aberdeenshire who has lent a hand in the last week—farmers; council workers; organisations; volunteers such as the Community Off-road Transport Action Group, or COTAG, which has been amazing in getting people out of tough situations; and neighbours and passers-by who have pushed cars or dug roads. I thank the children who have been digging out their neighbours’ driveways. It has been a massive effort in Aberdeenshire, and it will continue. We are getting freezing temperatures, and once the masses of snow start to melt, ice and flooding will be the next issue. We must be prepared. We need assistance and funding to make sure that when this happens again, which it will, Aberdeenshire and other rural counties are properly prepared.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Illegal Waste: Organised Crime

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is formidable and impressive. Frankly, I am delighted and proud to be on the same side of the fight as her, and she has led an incredible campaign. I went to see these beads myself, and they are appalling. They are tiny plastic beads embedded in the sand. People are having to remove them with sweeping brushes and sieves; they are literally sieving the sand to remove thousands of beads, up and down the coastline. She is right to feel angry and upset about the issue.

As for the use of such beads being outdated, I will write to all the water companies to ask them who is still using these beads. If companies are still using them, I will ask what mitigations are in place to prevent them escaping, and what their plans are for looking at alternative methods. I agree with my hon. Friend that we do not want this to happen anywhere else.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

My thoughts are with those affected by the floods and by Storm Claudia. We cannot overstate the mental health impact of these events, and I pay tribute to the emergency teams and volunteers for the work that they do when we need them most.

All Members from across the House will have had incidents in their constituencies of fly-tippers dumping waste; sadly, we have seen serious cases in my constituency of Epping Forest. Fly-tipping is a blight on communities, and the shameless people who do it should be punished to the full extent of the law. The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) is right to raise the issue of the shocking illegal waste dump in his constituency, in which the waste was stacked over 10 metres high. It is positively frightening to think of the effects that will unfold for the environment, ecology and wildlife.

The Labour Government’s action so far on dumping and fly-tipping has been somewhat lacklustre, despite the fact that 36 of the 50 local authorities with the highest fly-tipping rates—a staggering 72%—are Labour-controlled. What are the Government doing to help join up police forces to tackle this issue? In the case of huge, catastrophic dumps, such as the one in Oxfordshire that we are discussing, what support do the Government give the Environment Agency and the local authority? Will they work with the Home Office, the Cabinet Office and the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government to tackle this? What analysis of reform are they proposing to the Environment Agency? Would they consider a review, as we have proposed? With police numbers dropping under Labour, how do the Government propose that rural and, indeed, urban police forces tackle fly-tipping more effectively? With regard to this catastrophic Oxfordshire case, are the Government conducting an assessment of the potential public health and environmental impacts of this horrific waste dump?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I congratulate my hon. Friend and her council on the work that they are doing to deal with illegal waste. On fly-tipping, there are all the measures that I mentioned in my response to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), and we have also made an announcement about crushing vehicles. We are carrying out a review of council powers to seize and crush the vehicles of fly-tippers. We want councils to work with the police and use the latest technology, such as drones, to help catch fly-tippers, and to crush more vehicles. I will provide guidance about what more we can do in the new year.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

Waste crime on an industrial scale is blighting rural communities across the country and costing the UK economy £1 billion a year. It has even been described as the “new narcotics” by a former chief executive of the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency needs the resources to both investigate the criminal activity that leads to the waste dumping, and to prevent environmental damage and toxic run-off, not just one or the other. Waste crime is significantly under-reported. Criminal activity is widespread, and there is little chance of prosecutions being brought. Will the Government back Liberal Democrat amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, tabled in the other place? They would designate serious and organised waste crime as a strategic policy threat, establish a national action plan, ensure that waste crime data was collected and published quarterly, and establish an independent review of serious and organised waste crime. Will she support the National Crime Agency in preventing and effectively prosecuting serious and organised waste crime?

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 16th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

“It seems to me that the natural world is the greatest source of excitement, the greatest source of visual beauty, the greatest source of intellectual interest. It is the greatest source of so much in life that makes life worth living”—wise words by David Attenborough. They are words that everyone can relate to, whether that is a university professor in Oxford, a 12-year-old watching “Blue Planet” on the BBC or, indeed, the specialist in ocean conservation I met yesterday as part of my role as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the ocean. Everyone in this room, in this country and on this planet has an interest in ensuring that our oceans are protected.

When we stare down from space at our blue jewel of a world, it is simply unfathomable that 230 million square kilometres of it are at present effectively unmanaged. It is a free-for-all. It has been allowed to become so because of history, but we now have the obligation to create a system of management, both in this room and across multilateral agreements with other countries. It is the wonder of our democracy in this country and other countries around the world that we can finally introduce a piece of legislation where we can manage many of these locations.

I stand as a proud MP for Medway, in particular Chatham, which has an historic dockyard that served much of our maritime trade and provided support to the Royal Navy. Many in my community have a proud history and legacy of serving on the oceans, from working on fleets supplying freight to participating in our royal naval tradition.

Our country has a proud history of conservation through the National Trust and other terrestrial organisations. We also have a number of third-party sector organisations that are committed to delivering on ocean conservation, not just through this treaty but through the many there have been in the past. Such organisations include Oceana and the Marine Conservation Society.

There is also excellent work being done by Plymouth University and Southampton’s National Oceanography Centre, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) and I had the pleasure of visiting earlier this year. Our Natural History Museum, with its work in London and across the country, the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace have all advocated for this in many ways and continue to do so. In many cases their work is not high profile; they do their work quietly and behind the scenes, such as by engaging with DEFRA—I am sure the civil servants can attest to this—and ensuring that they are safeguarding our fisheries and world.

This Bill is extremely welcome and timely. The high seas treaty reached its required 60 ratifications on 19 September, and the 60th ratification triggered a 120-day countdown, after which the treaty comes into force. If we want to be at that multilateral table to deliver for our residents in our communities and our country, we need to deliver this legislation. I welcome the Bill being placed before the House, and I welcome the debate with Members across this Chamber—from those who are fascinated by the sperm whale or the right whale to those who have rowed across oceans and seas.

The contents of the Bill are critical. Genetic heritage has not been mentioned much today, but it is a critical element as it can lead to cures for cancer and heart disease. Genetic heritage is a marker for our future on this planet. If there are cures that come as a result of this legislation, it is today that we give security and licence to it. The designation of marine protection areas has been much debated across this Chamber with regard to UK controls, and I agree with many of my colleagues that we need to do more domestically to protect our MPAs, make them fit for purpose and allow them live up to their designation.

This legislation creates the licence for marine protection areas in international waters, which will support our heritage and legacy for future generations. It is a pathway to the goal of protecting 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030. The Bill also gives scientific protections around licensing. We know that there are significant challenges for both our biotic and abiotic resources. Much time has been spent this afternoon discussing the damage caused by international industrial fisheries, with new technologies and industrial-sized trawlers coming from many nations of the world. The damage caused by these monsters, as I refer to them, is decimating not only our biological resources directly in that location but sea birds, species and any food chains associated with it.

There is also a debate about mining and drilling to be had in the next 10 to 20 years as we begin to get access to our deep-sea resources. Whether it is hydrates or base metals that we need, we need to have that conversation, so I implore the Government to look very closely at any moratorium. Then there is climate change, which is not to be denied by many across the world. It is happening. Species are under threat, and the destruction of habitats as a result of the warming and acidification of the ocean is impacting both coral reefs and seaweed beds.

To conclude, I still have a number of questions around the use of the Marine Management Organisation in this country and regional fisheries management organisations. How much extra resource will they need, because I certainly have questions at present around the MMO and its oversight? How do we know that this is going to be enforced? The UN has calculated that to make this effective we might need to look at figures of around $170 billion annually. Where is that money going to come from?

There are serious questions about who will enforce overfishing protection and marine protection areas when we have fishing piracy going on around the world. What are the measures for dispute resolution? We know that there are United Nations convention on the law of the sea disputes around the South China sea with China, and disputes are also ongoing over the Arctic, so what measures and mediation will this treaty introduce? This treaty tells everyone watching about our values, whether they be a 12-year-old “Blue Planet” watcher or a professor in a submersible in the Arctic. It sets the tone for the next hundred years. It is necessary that we do this and I implore colleagues to support it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 4th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Chambers]

There are so many fantastic organisations like Canine Partners. Another one is the Cinnamon Trust. If a person ends up going into hospital for an extended period of time, the Cinnamon Trust will take care of their pet for them and give it back to them when they are discharged. That takes away so much of the worry.

My partner Emma and I have two dogs: Frank and Moose. Frank has been mentioned before in Parliament, because I managed to wish him a very happy 15th birthday recently. He is a pug cross border terrier. I think the best way to describe how he looks, with his undershot jaw and his big buggy eyes, is quirky. I admit that he gets a mixed reception; one Liberal Democrat Member saw a picture of him and called him ugly, which I was horrendously offended by. [Hon. Members: “Shame!”] It was awful—shame! We were at one of my friends’ houses for dinner recently, and one of their children looked at Frank and said, “Frank is really ugly.” The other child said, “You shouldn’t say that, because he might have been in an accident.” It was possibly a genetic accident, but I want to make clear on the record that beneath his appearance, he is a gentle and loving companion, and he brings a smile to the face of everyone who sees him.

I know that many other Members, as well as people across the country, will feel as strongly about protecting animal welfare as I and other vets do. Pets like Frank and Moose have such profound impacts on our everyday lives and happiness, and it is crucial that we do all we can to ensure dogs like them are protected from the cruel practices involved in pet smuggling. All of the pets who have been mentioned in this Chamber, and others who have not been, are close to our hearts and serve to remind us of the importance of this Bill. Although my pets and yours, Madam Deputy Speaker—Alfie and—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Alfie and Luna.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Reader]

I could not agree more. It is critical that we do more in Parliament to raise these issues. I also welcome some of the minor amendments made in Committee, which strengthen the Bill further and will reassure people, particularly in the limited circumstances in which the Bill may have unintended consequences.

It is the story of my life that I am a dog lover and an animal lover. Every time I come home from Parliament, Dash is there waiting for me. Very fortunately, he comes with me when I come down to London, and he comes with me back to Northampton. It makes my life so much better, as you say, to come home, decompress—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

The hon. Gentleman is doing a marvellous job, but he has used “you” a number of times, as indeed have other Members in their interventions. While I am on the subject of interventions, it is fascinating for me personally to hear about the social media accounts of everybody’s dogs, but could we please try to keep interventions within scope of the Bill?

[Mike Reader]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—you make a good point.

As I was saying, when I come home and see Dash, it is a great opportunity to decompress. I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) that that is such a valuable part of owning a dog.

In closing, I want to thank a number of organisations that have helped me and others to really understand this issue—Four Paws, Battersea and the Countryside Alliance have provided great briefings and have helped me and others to understand it. Today is a victory for common sense and animal welfare. One way or another, we will make sure that we improve animal welfare rights in this place.

Sewage

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way. Monitoring sewage overflows does not immediately improve the health of our environment or of the public. It is the first minimum step to be able to take meaningful action, but I am sorry to say that the previous Government failed to take meaningful action. Between 2021 and 2023, Dewsbury and Batley experienced a massive number of sewage spills, totalling 4,604 incidents with a total duration of a staggering 28,383 hours or approximately three and a quarter years. Does the right hon. Member agree with me and my constituents that the privatisation of the water industry has been a total and abject failure, causing significant harm to our environment, public health and wildlife, and—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Member will know that interventions need to be brief, and should not be prepared and read out from a script.

[Victoria Atkins]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who has in fact lined up the next paragraph my speech—it is extraordinary—because this improved knowledge must lead to action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The shadow Secretary of State will know that she cannot intervene on an intervention, which, by the way, was far too long. I think we will go back to Julia Buckley.

[Julia Buckley]

I thank my hon. Friend for his amusing intervention, but more important is the measure in the 2025 Act that bans bonuses when the high standards of our environmental protections are not met.

[Victoria Atkins]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Labour Back Benchers should know this by now. The hon. Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock) fell into error—I will be kind to him—by mischaracterising the comment that I made about him and the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) laughing during the course of my speech, when I was talking about the importance of data monitoring. It was not in any way—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The shadow Secretary of State will know that that was not a point of order, but a point of debate. Perhaps we had best return to Julia Buckley.

[Julia Buckley]

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your excellent chairmanship.

Our important Bill has not just banned bonuses, but introduced criminal liability, which will mean that, finally, chief executives and senior leadership figures can end up in prison for up to two years. We have also introduced mandatory electronic sensors, which monitor the overflows in real time. This is objective data that is measured in real time, and, crucially, as this is an important question from the Liberal Democrats, that data is available to the public.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Rodda]

Of course.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The time limit has been reached. The hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) ought to have concluded his remarks rather than taken another intervention from the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes).

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Griffiths]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s diagnosis, but I do agree that the fines need to be collected and distributed.

The other issues that have been identified in my constituency—I imagine that they are wider issues, too—are illegal misconnections and cowboy builders, which we must crack down on. Without addressing those issues, we will not get the results that we need, and constituents need to know what is being done to stop them.

Since being elected, I have had constructive engagement with Southern Water and the Environment Agency’s local team and head office. Having visited Ford wastewater treatment works and done a shift with the misconnections team in Bognor Regis, I know that work is being done to upgrade the network, but this issue requires a strategic, cross-agency approach—one that considers the serious impact of the Government’s continued pursuit of house building on our floodplains on flood resilience and sewage discharges. When schools in my constituency are taking children to the beach and being told that they cannot swim in the sea, it is not just disappointing; it is disgraceful. It is not the legacy that we want to leave for the next generation—we owe them better.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Maynard]

I thank my hon. Friend, and, yes, I absolutely do.

Ofwat is also failing to innovate. It appears to do little, if anything, to push companies to do this. This is so critical because, if we are going to increase capacity in sewage treatment works, there are many better ways of doing so. There is a host of new technologies out there from leak detection, pipeline monitoring and predictive maintenance equipment to trenchless pipe repair and pressure management technologies. Yet I have heard from firms in my constituency that it is easier to sell sewer technology solutions in the US and Europe than in the UK. This is where the issues of the dire state of water companies’ finances and the sewage scandal intersect, because companies cannot make basic repairs, let alone properly innovate and improve, when so much of their revenue is going straight out of the door in interest payments.

The previous Government have a lot to answer for. It was on their watch that dumping sewage in our rivers and lakes reached record levels, as water companies piled up billions in debt. All the while, bosses rewarded themselves with generous bonuses for mismanagement and failure on so many levels. Many people who work so hard in those companies suffered under that mismanagement.

There is only so much point in looking backwards. What I am appalled by is that the new Government, who came into power with promises to get tough with the water companies and sort out the scandal, have so far shown themselves to be about as tough as Ofwat. The Water (Special Measures) Act—by the way, I say to the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) that it was not voted on by us—was, well, just about nothing. Government Members and Conservative Members rejected a whole host of basic common sense steps, proposed as amendments, which could have made the legislation genuinely impactful. I will give some examples.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I would just like to suggest that the hon. Gentleman bring his remarks to a close rather than give us some examples, because we want to hear from the Minister. He has 30 seconds at most.

[Charlie Maynard]

I will make that three. Thank you very much, and over to you.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Over to her. [Laughter.] I call the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At Prime Minister’s questions earlier, the Leader of the Opposition said that Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader

“was whipping his MSPs to get male rapists into women’s prisons”.

That is categorically and utterly untrue. Scottish Labour MSPs repeatedly called for the Scottish Government to ensure the safety of women prisoners. Please can you advise me how I can ensure that the Leader of the Opposition corrects the record and withdraws this disgraceful slur?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. He will know that Members are responsible for the accuracy of their remarks in this Chamber. He has none the less raised his concerns and I am sure they will have been heard on the Opposition Benches. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to correct the record, there are mechanisms available for her to do so.

Water Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 28th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Clive Lewis]

I thank my hon. Friend for an excellent speech. I have learned so much history; it has been very interesting. He might be surprised to learn that I do not believe in state ownership of our water assets either. The Bill gives the public the final say on that, along with the Secretary of State and the commission. There are so many other models to consider: municipalised models, mutuals, handing the companies partly over to the strategic authorities and the Mayors that the Labour Government are setting up. There are myriad opportunities, options and routes to go down.

People say that the change would not be cheaper. I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to research by Visiting Professor David Hall and Conor Gray at the University of Greenwich. They said that the savings from within the system on a transition to some form of public ownership would amount to between £3.2 billion and £5.8 billion annually for England and Wales—enough to deliver price cuts of between 22% and 34%—because there would be lower rates for the financing of future expenditure.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. That was a very long intervention.

[Neil Coyle]

I am not clear where in the Bill such savings are supposedly achievable. I think it is naive to assume that things would automatically be better if the ownership of a water company were changed and it was run by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or the Treasury. We also have comparisons with France: Paris has a publicly owned water system, yet during the Olympics triathlon, events were repeatedly delayed due to poor water quality caused by sewage spills.

The cost has been touched on. The Social Market Foundation estimates that nationalising the water industry would cost a small fortune. Share and debt holders would need to be compensated, costing an estimated £90 billion—that is based on Ofwat’s regulatory capital value for companies in England and Wales. It would cost billions, take time and be extremely complex, and the burden of financing investment in the water and sewerage infrastructure would simply be transferred to my constituents, with no guarantee that future Ministers would provide the funding that the water system needs. And, of course, the debts would become public and go on to the Government’s balance sheet.

A state-owned system might also deter overseas investors in other water companies; that was one of the features of the debate we had in my constituency last week. All that would come at a time when the country is seeking to step up investment not only in water and sewerage infrastructure but in energy generation. I am not keen on anything that would block investment and slow growth, particularly when it comes to green, more environmentally friendly energy production.

I think it is right that the Government have not set out plans to nationalise water. I am interested in results for the people I serve. I welcome the fact that Ministers want to tackle the problems in the sector as quickly as possible by improving what we have. In 2019, frankly, voters were scared—so scared of our former leader and our manifesto commitments that they chose Boris Johnson over us. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South commends an element of populism in the support for water nationalisation, but given the populism that we have lived through and how we got into the situation the country faces now with Brexit, we should be more mindful and wary of simply saying that we should all welcome populist ideas. The public generally support the death penalty, but most of us would not recommend adopting that.

We went to the polls last year and did very well, in case anyone has not noticed. Our manifesto said specifically—on page 59, in case anybody does not remember, although I am sure everyone read it avidly:

“Labour will put failing water companies under special measures”

and that we would prevent dumping and empower the regulator. It went on:

“We will give regulators new powers to block the payment of bonuses to executives who pollute our waterways and bring criminal charges against persistent law breakers. We will impose automatic and severe fines for wrongdoing and ensure independent monitoring of every outlet.”

The water industry is not represented here today, so I want briefly to be the devil’s advocate. The industry would say that it has responded to our election and to some of the public concerns. For example, it would say that it has set out plans to invest £104 billion between 2025 and 2030 to support economic growth, build homes and secure our water supplies. It would outline that our drinking water is, I think, the joint third best in the world, which is something to be proud of. It would also say that between ’89 and ’23-24, the water industry invested more than £236 billion in real terms and £431 billion in total expenditure terms. The water industry would want us to focus on Ofwat and the role it has played. It claims that, had water bills risen with inflation, there would be £18 billion of additional funding—that is the figure from Water UK. From April 2020 to April 2025, Ofwat cut investment plans by £6.7 billion; that sum could have dealt with some of the issues. How we deal with the regulator is an important focus going forward.

On pollution, the water industry would say that it is not just about the water industry. Agriculture is believed to contribute to 40% of water-quality failures, and we do not spend enough time focused on other problems. On quality of service, apparently just under 16 billion litres of water are supplied to customers every day, which is the equivalent of 140.4 litres a day per person according to Ofwat’s figures. I am not sure how everyone is using their share—I intend to use mine.

The water companies would highlight the support that they provide to customers. They have provided £1 billion of financial support since 2020, including supporting 100,000 people during the pandemic with payment breaks, according to the Consumer Council for Water. They would also say that leakage is down, but, as I have said, my constituents think it is still too high and want to see further action.

Another issue affecting my constituency is blockages. We have not focused on this very much today, but in the UK there are 300,000 sewer blockages every year according to Utility Week. That is partly the result of 7 million wet wipes, 2.5 million tampons, 1.5 million sanitary pads and other things being incorrectly flushed down our toilets, including condoms and nappies. I ask people please to stop that—I am not suggesting that anyone in the Chamber or in this debate is responsible.

A business on Blackfriars Road that had been directly affected in 2018 by a blockage came to me. The smell and disruption were disgusting. It was a fatberg—I think that is the polite term: a blockage the size of three buses and weighing five tonnes. Appropriately, it was near the bottom end of Blackfriars Road—where else? It was dissected on Channel 4—where else?—on a programme called “Fatberg Autopsy: Secrets of the Sewers”, which is how we know the weight and what was in it. It was not the biggest fatberg in my constituency, never mind in the country—I assume they are worse in London. There was also a 30-tonne monster fatberg under Southwark cathedral and Borough market. Those fatbergs and problems in the sewers and the size of the oldest sewers are why we need the Tideway tunnel.

As I said, Ministers in the former Government should have addressed the concerns of Thames Water and not built a whole new model to deliver a tunnel that will help to address some of those challenges. We can contrast that with the Minister since 2024, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), who is in her place. We also have the Secretary of State, who represents a seat in Croydon—I should have looked that up. I thank them for acting on the manifesto that was raised with me and supported by so many constituents.

The Water (Special Measures) Act was delivered fast by this Government and delivers on the manifesto aims, but we should allow it to be implemented before we consider any other legislation. The Act delivers on promises by blocking bonuses for executives who pollute our waterways, bringing criminal charges against persistent lawbreakers, enabling automatic and severe penalties and ensuring the monitoring of every sewage outlet. Those are all useful and would have helped to tackle issues with Thames Water and other companies in the past. As I say, we should allow that legislation to be implemented before we look at further adapting and changing it.

The way in which we regulate is important; we cannot bind a future Government. A regulated market with clear safeguards for consumers, a ban on profiteering and a system that delivers long-term investment with a clear framework in regulation is far better. That is the aim of the Government, which was delivered within months of the election. Of course, that was followed by the review, which will shape further legislation in time. With apologies to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South, I believe this Bill should wait until we see its outcome. The Independent Water Commission has objectives for the water industry and strategic spatial planning—all the “blah, blah, blah” bits—but, importantly, it also has Labour values in its objectives on affordability for customers, water company governance, and operational and financial resilience.

The commission also includes key measures that have not yet been touched on in this debate, including ensuring the water industry’s long-term stability, allowing it to attract investment, rationalising and clarifying the requirement for water companies to achieve better environmental measures—[Interruption.] I am being encouraged to go faster. The commission’s objectives also include improving the industry’s capacity.

I apologise for talking a little longer than expected. Any new legislation on the water industry must be mindful that nationalisation without compensation damages the whole sector and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South must be aware, forces the state to do more at a time when the Government are having to cut other budgets.

As I said, the motion on this issue did not pass in my constituency, but we have more in common on tackling the abuses in the system, including Thames Water’s abuse of my constituents, the lack of care about operations, the abuse of customers on bills and leaks, and the abuse of the state when a company that believes it is too big to fail expects us to step in.

I do not put form before function, and I am focusing on the functions of an effective water company. I am proud that we have delivered our manifesto commitment, and I look forward to further action from Ministers.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords message

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I confirm that nothing in the Lords message engages Commons financial privilege.

Clause 1

Rules about remuneration and governance

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

I beg to move,

That this House insists on Commons Amendment 1 to which the Lords have disagreed, disagrees to Lords Amendment 1B, to the words restored to the Bill by the Lords’ disagreement to Commons Amendment 1, and proposes Amendments (a) and (b) to the Bill in lieu of the words left out by Commons Amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With this, it will be convenient to consider the following Government motion:

That this House insists on Commons Amendment 2 to which the Lords have disagreed, and proposes Amendment (a) in lieu of the words so left out.

[Emma Hardy]

I am delighted to have another opportunity to debate this transformative Bill in this Chamber. I thank all Members for continuing to take an interest in this important piece of legislation, which demonstrates our shared commitment to improving the water sector. Today, this House will consider amendments made in the other place.

I recognise that there is huge interest across this House in wider issues relating to water. Though our debate today is solely focused on the changes made to the Water (Special Measures) Bill in the other place during the Lords’ consideration of Commons amendments on 5 February, I look forward to future opportunities to discuss wider concerns and actions, for example through work relating to the independent commission.

I turn first to the changes made in the other place that would require water companies to regularly report to Ofwat on their financial structure, and to ensure that that information could be readily accessed and understood by the public. It is important to highlight that water companies are already required under their licences to publish by a set date financial performance metrics within their annual performance reports. That includes the interest on their borrowings, their financial flows and an analysis of their debt. If water companies do not comply with these licence conditions, Ofwat can take enforcement action, including issuing fines.

However, the Government recognise that there is an opportunity to make financial data more accessible for members of the public. The Government have therefore worked at pace with Lord Cromwell and Ofwat to develop a way to achieve our shared objective of improving the transparency and accessibility of reporting on key financial metrics. The insertion of a new section 35E into the Water Industry Act 1991 will make it clear that water companies should provide an intelligible overview of their financial position at least once a year. That overview should include a summary of the significant changes that have taken place over the past 12 months, and will cover key aspects of water companies’ financial position, such as their share capital and debt.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a great pleasure to speak in this final stage of the Bill. Before I start my remarks, I will respond to the pertinent question about levels of borrowing for water companies asked by my friend and former colleague on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner). The Minister is right that Government amendment (a) is about reporting rather than the levels of borrowing. It is regrettable that the Government chose to reject the Conservative amendment in Committee that would have allowed the Secretary of State to set the amounts of borrowing for water companies. I hope that, as we move towards Cunliffe review, the Government may look at that again so that we can have tighter control on the water companies and their levels of debt.

Before I make my remarks on the Lords messages, I will say that getting to the Bill to this stage has been the result of much hard work across this House and the other place. I thank everyone, both front of house and behind the scenes, who has worked hard to get us here. That includes: the Minister for her willingness to listen to those across the House throughout the Bill’s passage; similarly, her counterpart in the other place, Baroness Hayman; those who have worked to draft the Bill and amendments; the Bill Committee; parliamentary staff from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; and campaign groups and stakeholders who provided their insights to the Committee to help make the Bill even stronger, not least the Conservative Environment Network, the Angling Trust, and the Wildlife and Countryside Link.

Sadly, however, as the Opposition have stressed throughout the Bill’s passage in this House and the other place, this final stage of the Bill risks being yet another missed opportunity to act holistically on this important issue. It is unfortunate that the Government have been unwilling to go much further than their copy-and-paste approach, rebooting measures that the Conservatives took in government to address this issue.

We heard in previous stages how the bans on bonuses for water company chief executives and ensuring that 100% of storm overflows are monitored—up from 7% under Labour—were introduced by the previous Conservative Government. None the less, ever the optimist, I came to the Chamber hoping that the Government might be willing to reconsider their position on the issues of the amendments and the reasoning from the other place, which cover familiar ground. We debated these issues in the previous stages, not only in this House but in the other place.

At the heart of the Lords amendments is a theme that His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition have emphasised throughout the Bill’s passage: accountability. The previous lack of accountability for water companies created many of the issues that the water industry has faced. The Conservatives in government and now this Government have attempted to try and address that. This is another chance for the Government to go even further and inject some of what is really needed into their approach.

I turn to Lords amendment 1B, which reverses the Government’s decision to remove measures from the Bill that would require financial reporting to be collected by Ofwat for its remuneration guidance. We know that one of the most worrying aspects of our water industry has been its financial resilience, as Ofwat’s “Monitoring financial resilience” report back in November made clear, with 10 companies at need of increased monitoring and three in the highest category of risk, with closer monitoring required at a more senior level with Ofwat.

We all know, too, the cases involving specific water companies and the real risk that financial mismanagement brings for the survival of those companies and the water provision that their consumers rely on. It is disappointing, therefore, that the Government have been unwilling throughout the Bill’s passage to accept Conservative amendments, or Cross-Bench amendments such as this one by Lord Cromwell, offered in a constructive spirit, which may have gone some way to address the issue. None the less, the Opposition truly want to see better financial resilience. Therefore, on financial reporting in particular, we want the Government to accept this as a reasonable step to regain accountability on financial resilience.

The Lords amendment to clause 1 would quite simply mean that, when it comes to financial reporting, there would be nowhere to hide for water companies and the decisions they make in this area. I note that, following the Lords’ rejection of Commons amendment 1, the Government have tabled amendment (a) to Lords amendment 1B, which will go some way to improving the financial transparency of water companies, as a formal concession to Lords amendment 1B.

Subsection (4) of Government amendment (a) states that what water companies must publish should be decided “from time to time”. I hope the Minister can see that such vagueness might be a problem moving forward, as “from time to time” could allow the regulator not to review when the need arises, because it had done so a few years prior or even longer ago, and justify that by arguing that it was doing so “from time to time”, as the law outlines. Even if nothing or little would need changing from year to year, or every few years, surely it would be better to require this at least to be reviewed at precise regular intervals so that the most valuable information is provided in the best possible format.

That aside, however, His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition acknowledge the Government’s concession on financial transparency, and indeed public access, including characteristics of capital and debt. We are pleased to see that addition to the Bill.

In the same spirit, I move on to Lords reason 2A to disagree with Commons amendment 2, which urges this House to consider again the requirement that any rules under clause 1 be brought into force by means of a statutory instrument from the Secretary of State. Again, this amendment is familiar territory that we have debated at many stages, having been a measure consistently called for by His Majesty’s Opposition in the other place and in this House, both in the Chamber and in Committee. We have maintained throughout that accountability is needed to deliver and enforce change in the water industry, but that must include the Government of the day, no matter which party they are.

It is odd that, on the one hand, this Government have claimed that they want a tight grip on water companies, while on the other, they consistently oppose a measure that would allow them to do exactly that. It is odd, too, that in Committee, the Liberal Democrats sought to amend the same part of the Bill that would have that effect. Their intentions were to bring in guidance as soon as possible, but there is a distinction between intent and effect. Removing some of the same lines would have had the same exact effect in ridding the Bill of the statutory instrument requirement that this amendment seeks to maintain.

The Government have argued—as the Minister has again today—that they fear that Ofwat’s flexibility to adapt their rules as necessary could be impeded in some way. But statutory instruments remain a timely measure to introduce any changes if needed. So once again, the Government’s argument does not stack up. It is only right that we, as parliamentarians elected by the British public to represent their interests with our voices and votes, are able to look at the proposed rules and exercise our ability to voice concerns if they risk falling short of protecting the public’s interests. Why deny the public and Members of this House the ability to uphold accountability of the water industry, which has been missing for too long? As such, once again we have urged the Government to accept what we believe is a reasonable set of amendments in the name of accountability.

Now, at the 11th hour, the Government have tabled Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords reason 2A that disagrees with Commons amendment 2, the amendments tabled and argued for by my Conservative friends in the other place the noble Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, and add that the remuneration and governance rules may not be not be enacted until they have been provided in draft to the Secretary of State. There is a move towards some Government accountability, but sadly, not what the Opposition had wanted: a statutory instrument laid by the Secretary of State and approved by both Houses.

None the less, I am grateful that the Government have listened to Lord Roborough, me and the other Conservative colleagues who have argued for more accountability, and that they have moved a little towards us with this amendment. However, I am still unclear why the Government appear scared of full accountability. Sadly, I fear that some of these last-minute concessions, which we would like to go further, look like the Government trying to avoid double insistence and the Bill failing. We do not wish the Bill to fail, as we all want the same thing: to see our waters improve and for the Government to continue with the measures that the Conservatives set in train in the last Parliament. In that spirit, we will not stand in the way of the Government’s amendments.

There has been many a chance for the Government to grab opportunities to bolster the Bill with both hands. Many chances have been missed throughout its passage, not least by the Government continually rejecting our water restoration fund to ringfence fines to restore local waterways, rather than to balance the Treasury’s books. They did not accept our sensible proposals to go further with nature-based solutions to flood risk. They rejected our proposals for fines on water companies to result in equivalent reductions in customers’ bills, and our sensible proposals to allow the Secretary of State to place limits on the amount that water companies can borrow. They blocked our proposals to protect consumers in different parts of the country from paying for failing water companies that do not supply them.

As the Bill progresses and the Cunliffe review begins, I again urge the Government, for the sake of our water, environment, constituents, communities and, indeed, fairness, not to let political pride and dogma stand in the way of doing the right thing and making water legislation the best it can be. We wish the Bill well as it ends its journey in this House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. As I have said throughout, he will have to wait and see, but to imply that legislation is required for the fund would be dishonest. I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want his honesty to be questioned. The implication that legislation is required for the water restoration fund is simply not true.

As I outlined in my opening speech, I recognise that there remains a strong interest in issues wider than the scope of today’s debate. I reiterate that the Bill is not the limit of our ambition. The Government will continue to work with hon. Members across the House to discuss and make progress in addressing the fundamental issues facing our water sector.

The hon. Gentleman mentions the words “time to time”. The wording has been specifically designed to allow Ofwat to review requirements as and when appropriate, and adapt quickly where needed. We do not want to pre-empt how often this kind of review might need to take place. To reassure him, that was discussed at length in the other place.

On parliamentary scrutiny, the Government worked with Ofwat to offer peers and MPs an opportunity to raise questions on Ofwat’s rules in a parliamentary drop-in session, providing further insight on the rules. However, that proposal was not accepted by hon. Members’ colleagues in the other place, which feels like a shame.

It has always been our intention to bring about, through the Bill, meaningful change in the performance and culture of the water sector. The amendments tabled by the Government are in keeping with that objective. I hope the House will support the Government amendments, which will ensure that the public can easily access an overview of water company financial information, and will give Ofwat a duty to issue rules on financial transparency that will commence on Royal Assent. Together, the amendments will enable the Government to take another positive step forward in restoring public trust in the water sector, which has sadly been destroyed over the past 14 years.

Similarly, I hope the House will support the Government in bringing forward amendments to ensure that Ofwat’s rules are brought forward promptly and that its independence is protected. The Government acknowledge the intention behind the changes made in the other place, but we cannot accept the risk that they create in delaying the introduction of Ofwat’s rules. I therefore hope that Members across the House will also support the Government in ensuring that these vital rules are brought forward without delay.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I am sure the Minister did not meant to imply that the shadow Minister was in any way dishonest, and she might perhaps seek to correct the record to say she felt that he was mistaken or incorrect.

[Emma Hardy]

I am very happy to issue that correction.

Question put.

A Division was called.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Division off.

Question agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House insists on Commons Amendment 1 to which the Lords have disagreed, disagrees to Lords Amendment 1B to the words restored to the Bill by the Lords’ disagreement to Commons Amendment 1, and proposes amendments (a) and (b) to the Bill in lieu of the words left out by Commons Amendment 1.

Motion made, and Question put,

That this House insists on Commons Amendment 2 to which the Lords have disagreed, and proposes amendment (a) in lieu of the words so left out.—(Keir Mather.)