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As for the use of such beads being outdated, I will write to all the water companies to ask them who is still using these beads.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.)

Avian Influenza

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make a statement on avian influenza.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before I call the Minister, I give Members a brief reminder that laptop use in the Chamber is not permitted.

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

Avian influenza is once again posing a threat to both kept and wild birds across the country, and supporting birdkeepers, the public and conservation bodies to manage and prepare for avian influenza continues to be one of our main priorities. Following the detection of highly pathogenic avian influenza in poultry and other captive birds this winter, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Animal and Plant Health Agency have stood up their well-established outbreak structures to control and eradicate disease, restore normal trade and assist local communities’ recovery.

DEFRA’s disease control measures seek to contain the number of animals that need to be culled, either for disease control purposes or to safeguard animal welfare, and our approach aims to reduce adverse impacts on the rural and wider economy, the public, rural communities and the environment, including the impact on wildlife, while protecting public health and minimising the overall cost of any outbreak. Our approach to avian influenza considers the latest scientific and ornithological evidence and veterinary advice. Current policy reflects our experience of responding to past outbreaks of exotic animal disease, and is in line with international standards of best practice for disease control.

All birdkeepers are urged to remain vigilant and take action to protect their birds from avian influenza. Scrupulous biosecurity by all birdkeepers at all times is essential to protect the health and welfare of flocks. In response to the heightened risk levels and escalating number of cases, an avian influenza prevention zone, mandating enhanced biosecurity, is in force across England, Wales and Scotland. In addition, mandatory housing for kept birds is in force across the unitary authority of the East Riding of Yorkshire, the unitary authority of York, the city of Kingston upon Hull and all districts in Lincolnshire, Norfolk and Suffolk, North Yorkshire and Shropshire, to mitigate the risk of further outbreaks of disease occurring.

In areas where an AIPZ is in force, it is a legal requirement for all birdkeepers, whether they have pet birds, commercial flocks or just a few birds in a backyard flock, to follow strict biosecurity measures to limit the spread of, and eradicate, the disease, including—when mandatory housing measures are a requirement of an AIPZ—a requirement to keep their birds housed. The need for an AIPZ is kept under regular review as part of the Government’s work to monitor and manage the risks of avian influenza. Together with the devolved Governments, we will closely monitor the need to extend mandatory housing to other areas of the country.

While avian influenza is primarily considered a disease of birds, it can infect humans, although this is a very rare event in the UK and the risk to the general public remains very low. Nevertheless, protecting public health remains of paramount importance, and DEFRA and the APHA work closely with regional UK Health Security Agency health protection teams to monitor the situation and provide health advice to persons at infected premises and those who have been in close contact with infected wildlife as a precaution. As a further reassurance, the Food Standards Agency has confirmed that avian influenza poses a very low food safety risk for UK consumers. Properly cooked poultry and poultry products, including eggs, are safe to eat.

DEFRA and the APHA will continue to work with birdkeepers, who are on the frontline of this terrible disease. Compensation is paid for any healthy kept birds culled. As the House will know, compensation was updated to involve earlier assessment of the number of healthy birds and swifter calculation of compensation. That allows DEFRA to provide earlier certainty about entitlement to compensation, better reflects the impact of outbreaks on premises, and leads to swifter payments to help to stem any cash-flow pressures.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am sure that the Minister has concluded his remarks. I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Victoria Atkins]

This is a very difficult time for birdkeepers and farmers, particularly those whose birds have died or been culled, and all those who have had to upend their flocks and move them inside, given the impact that doing so can have on both the mental and economic resilience of individuals. I thank everyone who is involved in tackling avian influenza, and is working tirelessly to prevent the spread of this disease, including in my constituency.

I thank the Minister for his response. I regret that the Secretary of State has not made an oral statement on this important matter; particularly in the light of the revelation that a farm worker has been infected with avian influenza, I would have thought that the Secretary of State would have thought to update the House. However, we have managed to secure this urgent question, for which I am grateful. On the subject of the farm worker infected with the virus in the west midlands, first, how is this person? Have they recovered, and has anyone else been infected? What are the wider risks to human health?

Elsewhere, one of the largest and most modern egg-laying sites in the country has been affected, with more than a million birds being culled. Given the site’s significant role in processing the UK’s barn egg production, what discussions is the Minister having with the sector to mitigate the impact on supply? Will he please update us on his discussions with the devolved Governments about introducing similar restrictions to those in England? Of course birds, and indeed viruses, do not recognise borders. How is he ensuring that compensation is made without delay, and how much is it costing? Is the Department keeping the scheme under review, including the loss of profit for farmers and the conservation impacts for zoos housing rare and critically endangered species, such as the Bali starling at Battersea zoo, which I visited this week?

We are also concerned by reports that the avian influenza vaccination taskforce has stalled. Is that correct and, if so, why? Finally, DEFRA Ministers—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The shadow Minister is trying my patience. We have a lot of business to get through today, and time limits are there for a reason. I call the Minister.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for her important questions. First, I reassure her and the House that the individual in question is, in my understanding, making a full recovery, but obviously we want to ensure that no one is put at undue risk. The advice is clear: the only people at risk are those who are in very close proximity. People should follow the guidance and advice.

On mitigating sector supply, my understanding is there is sufficient supply within the system. Although the right hon. Member is absolutely right to raise the point that it was a significant and large producer that was affected, we are confident that supply is secure. On working with the devolved Administrations, my officials are in regular contact, as I said in my opening statement. The situation is being constantly monitored.

The right hon. Member will be familiar with the compensation arrangements because they are the same as when she and her colleagues were in government. They are designed to control the disease, but of course they are also absolutely important to secure cash flow for farmers.

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will recall the terrible outbreak a few years ago when exactly those questions were raised and, as the shadow Minister, I asked similar questions at the time. The compensation arrangements were changed by the previous Government in a beneficial way, and I am absolutely confident at the moment that the delays we saw before are not happening. But he raises an important point: anyone who has a suspicion of an outbreak should report it as soon as possible, and they should not be concerned that they will suffer detriment from so doing.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

Farmers and vets will remember the 2022 outbreak, which was the biggest we had seen in the UK and which killed millions of birds worldwide, so this new outbreak is of huge concern for three major reasons.

First, there is the impact on animal welfare, not just the birds catching avian influenza and dying or being culled, but their having to be kept inside rather than being free range. Secondly, there is the impact on farmers, their businesses and their mental health. As with any notifiable disease, this is hugely stressful, and it is hugely disruptive to business models. What are we doing to ensure that compensation and support are given to farmers quickly? Thirdly, there is a huge potential impact on public health. While we fully understand that there is a low public health risk at the moment—this is a disease of birds—we have just come out of covid-19. We know that if someone is infected with human flu and potentially gets infected with avian influenza, there is a risk that it becomes more infectious to humans. What discussions is the Minister having with APHA and the Department of Health and Social Care to monitor the genotypes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank my hon. Friend—and he is a friend—for his concern. Of course, this is of particular concern and interest to representatives from the east of England, and I share that concern. We have discussed the future of Weybridge and the investment many times before. I gently point out that the Conservative Government had the opportunity over 14 years to make that investment. Over £200 million has been allocated by this Government, and we will continue to make sure that the agency is properly resourced.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I do not think anybody would disagree with the comments by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) about the redevelopment of the facility at Weybridge, but I suspect that once avian influenza is in the wild bird population, as it is here, even the best facility in the world will struggle to contain it. On disease containment, I remember the absolutely heartbreaking experience of walking along beaches in Orkney and seeing dead body after dead body. Is the Minister engaging with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other major organisations so that he can at least be aware of the impact on the wild bird population?

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am, as ever, grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue as it impacts Northern Ireland. We have been developing a UK-wide response to this, and my officials are in constant contact with officials from his Administration. We will ensure that this UK-wide response continues to be in place, because it is very important that we work together on all these issues. I hope in the not-too-distant future to continue my tour of the country, and I very much look forward to taking up his long-standing invitation—not only to Stormont, where I have been before, but to his fishing sector—and the very warm welcome that I know I will receive.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The sitting is suspended.

Climate and Nature Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill and on this very important subject. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for her passionate speech and for giving us all an opportunity to discuss this subject. I also welcome the contribution from the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare). It has been very good so far to see so much consensus across the House on this issue.

Having campaigned on climate change before entering this place, and serving a constituency where so many people care about this issue, I know how vital it is that we take bold action to protect our planet. The science is clear: last year was the warmest year on record and the first to exceed 1.5°C of warming above pre-industrial levels, and we have seen a shocking 73% decline in average wildlife population sizes globally since 1970. I believe this Government know how important it is to move rapidly to tackle these crises. In the context of the Bill, I will highlight some of the measures the Government have taken in their first six months that I welcome.

The establishment of Great British Energy will help deliver green, clean energy and improve our energy security. The nine-year onshore wind ban was lifted in just 72 hours of our coming into office. We have confirmed that we will ban fracking. As a proud Co-operative and Labour MP, I welcome the commitment to community energy. This type of leadership is not new from Labour. As has been mentioned, the last Labour Government led the way in passing the Climate Change Act, establishing a legal requirement for the UK to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Of course, we are here to discuss nature as well. As climate affects nature, so nature affects climate. I particularly welcome the Water (Special Measures) Bill, which will help clean up our rivers, lakes and seas. I want to talk about two aspects locally. I hope hon. Members will forgive me—as many Members from Norfolk are here they may have heard some of this before. I will then turn to global aspects. Many of the Bill’s measures will benefit my constituency of Norwich North and the county of Norfolk. That is vital because Norfolk is on the frontline of climate change. As the Norwich Climate Commission has set out, Norfolk has been identified as the dryest region of England because of climate change, agricultural irrigation demands and population growth.

Norfolk is also at substantial risk of flooding, which is only exacerbated by climate change. To compound the challenge, Norfolk has part of the fastest eroding coastline in north-west Europe. A recent report by Norfolk county council spells out the challenge posed by coastal erosion, including the prediction of possible sea level rises of up to 1.15 metres by the end of the century. My constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) is not in his place, but it is estimated that approximately 1,030 residential and commercial properties could be lost to erosion by 2105 solely in his constituency.

Climate change has a keenly felt impact on our area, as it does across the country and the world. The nature crisis will also have a hugely detrimental effect. I am sure that many Members have visited the broads—I know that many people have boats there. It is one of the jewels of our county and of our country, as a national park of which we can all be proud. I am proud that my constituency includes parts of it. But recently, the Broads Authority has declared a biodiversity emergency, warning of the need for urgent action to protect wildlife from the impacts of climate change and pollution. The broads has been losing species at a rate of six per decade in the past 50 years. Vital to addressing this decline is better land and water management and adaptation measures. I hope that the Minister will touch on that in her response. I would very much welcome a visit from the Minister to see the broads for herself, though I am sure she has already visited.

We have many challenges in Norfolk, but Norfolk is a key part of the solution. Some 60% of offshore wind energy in the UK is already generated in the east of England, making it an important centre of clean energy. There is even more potential in our region that I know this Government are serious about maximising, in relation not only to our climate change targets but to delivering jobs and growth for our area.

There are 640,000 green jobs in the UK, and they are growing four times faster than overall UK employment. That is a big, exciting opportunity for areas such as mine, especially for young people, many of whom cannot get jobs or do not feel they have got the skills, as was touched on in the statement. It is vital to invest in skills. As the east of England all-party parliamentary group set out, 1.2 million jobs will be needed in the low-carbon and renewable energy sector in England by 2050, and 10% of those are expected to be in the east.

I also want to reference the huge expertise and knowledge in Norwich. I recognise how many scientists contributed to the development of the Bill. We have the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, which has nearly 100 members ranging from PhD researchers to professors. At the Norwich research park we have many fantastic companies working on this agenda. Alora, which I visited recently, is literally growing rice on the surface of the ocean, helping tackle global hunger. Last year, I visited Wendling Beck—hon. Members are getting a tour of Norfolk—in the constituency of the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman). It is one of the most ambitious nature recovery projects in England, reversing biodiversity loss locally, inspiring climate action and building a sustainable and resilient landscape legacy. We need to maximise all the innovation that we have in the UK to deliver on the dual challenge of the nature and climate crises.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), who is no longer in his place unfortunately, did not give way to me, I will make the point now that Norwich is also home to a large financial services sector, including Aviva in his constituency. It is a key leader in sustainability. We have not spoken much about the role of business in this agenda, and indeed in the Bill, but it is vital. I welcome the fact that the Government are already accelerating plans to make us the green finance capital of the world, mandating UK-regulated financial institutions and FTSE 100 companies to develop and implement credible plans that align with the 1.5° goal of the Paris agreement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South mentioned airports, of which I am sure there will be much discussion in the months ahead. Norwich airport in my constituency not only provides jobs but is a centre of green aviation excellence. There are important opportunities to ensure that we develop the future of aviation in line with our climate commitments.

I turn to the international aspects of the biodiversity and climate crisis. As I say, before joining this place I was a campaigner working on a range of issues, including climate change. In that role, I was privileged to meet many young activists from around the world who know that their future is at stake, as well as many people on the frontline of climate change, like Hindou Ibrahim, an environmental activist and leader from Chad who has championed the indispensable role that indigenous people and solutions play in this agenda. I am sure that we could mention many examples of similar legislation around the world, even if it is not exactly the same. It is really important to draw on local knowledge. I hope that all those people would be pleased to see the cross-party consensus on the issue in this House and the commitment to bold action, even if we may disagree on some of the specific ways to get there.

This Labour Government are restoring British credibility on the world stage, and a huge part of that is about climate change. That is much needed: as we see countries turning away from the Paris agreement, it is even more vital that we reaffirm our commitment to global treaties. I welcome the launch of the global clean power alliance, which brings 12 countries together to turbocharge the roll-out of clean energy and drive green jobs and investment at home. At COP29, the Prime Minister announced a new climate goal to reduce carbon emissions by 81% by 2035. Importantly, he called on other countries to match that ambition, because none of us can do this alone.

As this debate has focused on the relationship between climate change and biodiversity, it must also be noted that the UK is resolutely focused on delivering the target to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. I welcome commitments such as the £10 million announced for the global biodiversity framework fund.

The last campaign that I worked on was on food and hunger. As WWF has highlighted, the leading driver of habitat loss is a broken food system. I urge the Government to outline what we are doing to tackle that, and to confirm that we are committed to tackling food security alongside climate and nature action.

Finally, I turn to public opinion. The Bill refers to a citizens’ assembly. As a councillor, I saw the benefit of local citizens’ assemblies. There is a question about the best mechanism to do them nationally; whatever happens with the Bill, I hope that we can continue that important conversation. I know how many people in Norwich are passionate about tackling climate change. When I have spoken at local schools, it is one of the topics that children raise with me, as I am sure they do with many hon. Members, because this is their future. We have many local groups, from Friends of the Earth to Norfolk Wildlife Trust. Climate also comes up on the doorstep—sometimes positively, sometimes negatively, but at least it is a conversation that we are having.

I know that this matters, this Government know that it matters and there is widespread public support, but there is so much more to do. We need to move as fast as we can to address the issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South spoke about the importance of growth and what it looks like. For me, good, sustainable growth and climate and nature commitments are not mutually exclusive. We can build millions more homes and protect our natural resources and biodiversity, and we can create infrastructure that limits damage to our ecosystems and conserves energy.

I want to be clear that I fully back action to tackle the dual nature and climate crises. I believe that the Government are also clear in their commitment to doing so and on the importance of joined-up action and embedding the agenda across Government. I welcome the bold plans already set out to make Britain a clean energy superpower, to deliver green growth, to protect our natural environment and to lead internationally.

It is now important that we focus on delivery. I can see from today’s debate and from so many other debates that we have had in this House that there are many Back Benchers who are ready to hold the Government to account on their promises. Whatever happens with the Bill, I hope that we can maintain the cross-party working and spirit of collaboration as we move forward.

I, too, will finish with a quote—not from Margaret Thatcher, but from the UN Secretary-General. At the start of this year, he said:

“This is climate breakdown—in real time. We must exit this road to ruin—and we have no time to lose.”

I fully agree. As the Secretary-General says, we have seen hope power change. I believe that hope powered the change in Government last July. Many people were hopeful that we would see a step change in this important agenda. I am hopeful that we have a Government who are fully committed to tackling climate change and protecting our planet.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Public Services: Rural Areas

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Adam Jogee]

No confirmation was sought or provided.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumber-land noted, our rural communities remain at the heart of our country, economy, society, culture, heritage and arts. They deserve to be championed by all layers of Government.

We heard from my hon. Friend just what His Majesty’s new Government are doing to ensure that our rural communities get the support they need. I say gently to the Minister, who knows me well, that we will be holding him and his colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to account to ensure that we do just that. With that in mind, I wonder whether the Minister would accept my urging to ensure that the rural communities of Newcastle-under-Lyme, and Staffordshire more generally, are at the top of his agenda as he carries out his important duties in the months and years—many years, I hope—ahead.

I also echo the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield, which I think is bang on, and note the cross-party nature of the approach required from Government to ensure that we deliver for our rural communities. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland raised that point, too.

By the nature of their job, vocation, passion and commitment, our farmers are at the heart of our rural communities. They feed us and, in some cases, they clothe us, with sheep’s wool and the rest. They play an important role in keeping our life going, and I therefore urge the Minister to ensure that we advance the buy British and eat British agenda of both this Government and many Labour Members. It is one tangible way that we can not only help our farmers, but ensure that our rural communities get the well-functioning and reliable public services that they deserve. When the Minister winds up this important debate in response to my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland, some clarity on the buy British, eat British agenda would be welcome.

As I conclude my remarks, I invite the Minister to accept an invitation I think I may have already gently put to him—perhaps in a less formal way than raising it on the Floor of the House this afternoon. I invite him to come to Newcastle-under-Lyme to see and understand the challenges facing the rural communities in my wonderful constituency, where he would be very welcome. There are a number of excellent places we can have a cold drink; I think of the many pubs in our rural communities, and there are also tea shops and places for cake.

The Betley Tea Room is an excellent example. It is on a working farm, but it has an excellent tea room. The National Farmers Union has a satellite office there, so we would be able to kill two birds with one stone: we can have cake and see the farm and understand the challenges. In fact, now that I think about it, the Secretary of State—then the shadow Secretary of State—came to the farm and had some tea and cake and a tour. The only thing I would note is that when the Secretary of State came to the farm, he forgot his wellies, so I urge the Minister to make sure he has the appropriate footwear when he accepts my invitation to come and see us in Newcastle.

As I say, there are a number of pubs; I think of The Swan in Betley and The Hand and Trumpet in Wrinehill. You would be very welcome to come and visit us there any time, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will get the first round in. I will take anybody who is interested in seeing the wonders of North Staffordshire, with our local economy and all that we have to offer, exemplified by our rural areas.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland for securing this debate. As I said earlier, he gave an important speech that had us both listening and, I think, inspired—I mean that seriously—both by his commitment to his community and by the wider commitment of His Majesty’s Government to delivering for rural communities. I look forward to working with him and other colleagues—there are now a number of Labour colleagues who represent rural communities, and we are working together to get things done—to deliver for the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme, to help to support the people of North Northumberland, and, most importantly, to deliver for rural communities up and down our United Kingdom.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before calling the next speaker, I think it is important to clarify that, although I am a huge supporter of women standing for election, I have not actually endorsed Sheelagh’s candidature. [Laughter.]

Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I am going to reduce the time limit to three minutes, after the next speaker. I call Andrew Pakes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Few of the natural features of the Taunton and Wellington constituency in Somerset are as valued as the River Tone, which goes through the constituency. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), I welcome this Bill but wish it would go further. In particular, we need a much stronger regulator. As long as Ofwat has a duty to protect profits and returns for shareholders but not to protect the environment, it will be more of a tame kitten than a watchdog. When it comes to managing the quality of our water and our waterways, profiteering surely has no place in the equation, which is why we want to see privatised water companies replaced with not-for-profit companies, which work very effectively in Denmark. Water companies also need to be held to account for longer when it comes to investing in the infrastructure that is needed.

From preparing and submitting its bathing water status application—with a lot of support from the hard-working volunteers of the Friends of French Weir Park—I know how much goes into designating a bathing water such as the Tone in Taunton. I therefore urge the Minister, in the context of the ongoing parallel bathing water consultation—to completely end automatic de-designation after five years. Wessex Water and the Environment Agency have made it clear that we can get improvements in water quality in the Tone in five years—and who would disagree with improving the tone, Madam Deputy Speaker?—but they are unlikely to be enough to protect its designation unless more time is available.

We in Taunton also strongly disagree with making new designations dependent on already having sufficiently clean bathing water quality. The whole reason that communities are seeking to get their designations is to stimulate that improvement. As Surfers Against Sewage has pointed out, making quality a prerequisite rather than the goal to be established would have prevented almost all the current inland bathing waters from being designated. Also, we would oppose allowing bathing seasons to be curtailed. I hope the Minister will also say something about bringing in water restoration grants, which would have the dual advantages of supporting the drive to eliminate phosphates from the Somerset levels and moors and improving river and bathing water quality.

Having canvassed the views of my fellow swimmers the other day, I know how much people want to see the river improved. We therefore need to give rural communities the support they need for water restoration. We need to establish a tough regulator bound by legal duties to protect the environment, not just profits, and give bathing waters enough time to be brought up to standard without the threat of de-designation and being pushed into the “too difficult” pile. Our rivers and our environment—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I call Julie Minns.