Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Catherine Fookes Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy]

The right hon. Gentleman is indeed an eager beaver. As much as I do not wish to pour water on his enthusiasm, I will of course respond to all the amendments at the end of this stage of the Bill, as protocol expects. I hope he is able to contain his excitement, and is looking forward to my final comments on that area. And I shall be practising my pirouettes in anticipation.

I wish to pay special thanks to the Welsh Government, the Deputy First Minister and the officials who have worked so openly and collaboratively with the UK Government throughout the development and passage of this Bill. I also thank the Senedd for their consent, which we received on 21 January. I look forward to continuing to work closely with our Welsh counterparts to protect our rivers, lakes and seas, particularly those that cross our borders.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for all her work on this Bill. Does she agree that we have made much more progress on banning bosses’ bonuses in the six months that we have been in office than the Conservatives did in 14 years?

[Emma Hardy]

That excellent point was well made by my hon. Friend. I hope all hon. Members agree that the amendments tabled by the Government will only strengthen this Bill and will support new clause 18.

--- Later in debate ---

The Bill is okay—it is even good in parts—but it would be significantly better with the Liberal Democrats’ suggested amendments. We humbly ask right hon. and hon. Members to support those amendments, and especially amendment 9, to give the British people the radical water industry clean-up that they voted for.

[Catherine Fookes]

I thank the Minister for bringing forward the Bill so fast in the first six months of the Government. It was an honour to sit on the Bill Committee and to engage in constructive discussion with hon. Members from across the House. However, I must take issue with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and his veritable smorgasbord of amendments and new clauses. I will not support them, because, let us remember, this is just the first step in cleaning up the appalling mess we have been left with our water companies. I am sure that the commission will bring forward ideas for more legislation.

I grew up in the countryside on a farm, and one of my favourite memories was running down the garden and out into the river at the bottom, going for a walk and sploshing through the streams. I and my family took it for granted that we could just mess about in the streams. Apart from really annoying my mum when I got back by leaving a messy puddle of water on the floor, there was never any fear that I would get sick or that I had been wading through sewage. What a change there has been, with parents now worried about their children going into the water. They cannot run helter-skelter into the local chalk stream for fear that they will get an ear infection or an eye infection, or perhaps encounter a wet wipe or something much worse.

Sadly, the health of the Wye and the Usk, our two majestic rivers in Monmouthshire, has really suffered over the past 14 years. I have spent many happy hours walking alongside them, seeing herons and kingfishers, and we have had some of our happiest family days out there. The dreadful state that those two rivers are in makes them two really good examples of the 14 years of Conservative failure and flimflam. We have record levels of illegal sewage dumping in our rivers, lakes and seas, and chronic ongoing diffuse pollution from agriculture.

In every constituency across the UK there are amazing groups of citizen scientists who have really brought our rivers to the fore. I pay tribute to Save the River Usk and Friends of the River Wye in Monmouthshire, who are among the best in the UK. [Interruption.] I am afraid that I will not give way as we are under extreme time pressure. One of my key promises in the election campaign was to work to clean up our rivers. Feargal Sharkey endorsed my campaign—when someone like him endorses a campaign, we know that we will be held to account. That is why I am so pleased that in the last six months we have done more than the Conservatives and the Lib Dems when they were in coalition.

I am proud that we are already standing here debating the Bill, only six months in. It will bring criminal charges against persistent lawbreakers, with penalties including imprisonment. In addition, the cost recovery powers of regulators will be expanded to ensure that water companies bear the cost of enforcement action taken in response to their failings.

We have been left a very difficult legacy due to the disastrous inaction of the Tories and the Lib Dems when they were in coalition. It will take much more work and many years across borders, with both farmers and water companies, to restore our rivers, but the Bill makes an excellent start to cleaning up the horrific mess. It will mean that in future, I hope, parents will be able to allow their children to run helter-skelter into their local rivers and streams.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I would like to speak to amendments 2 and 3, tabled in my name. Amendment 2 would further strengthen the Bill by making it a criminal offence for water companies to fail to report discharge from emergency overflows. Amendment 3 would prohibit such discharge in river areas such as the Thames that are used for aquatic sports.

I have the privilege of representing the towns and villages of Beaconsfield, Marlow, Bourne End and the south Bucks villages. Unfortunately, we are served by Thames Water, and we have some of the highest levels of fines in the country. We are blessed with a beautiful waterway setting throughout my constituency, including the River Thames. Our area is rich in watersport clubs—the Marlow rowing club, the Marlow canoe club and the Upper Thames sailing club to name but three. Young people from high schools and grammar schools use the Thames for their water sports as well.

Amendment 3 would give water used for aquatic sports the same protection as that used for bathing. It would establish clear consequences for water companies and their chief executives where they fail to comply with a clear duty to protect the water in which people practise aquatic sports, particularly rowing. That is particularly true of Thames Water and of the Thames. I appreciate the cross-party support in Committee on these amendments.

Aquatic sports are an important part of our sporting heritage in this country, but storm overflow discharge into our rivers has adversely affected the health of participants, creating an ongoing health risk to rowing, sailing, canoeing and other aquatic sports clubs along the Thames and across the country. Many clubs, particularly in places such as Marlow, take their duty of care very seriously, and are having to put in place their own monitoring systems to protect their members.

Amendment 3 would ensure that water used for aquatic sports was put on the same statutory footing as bathing water. It is time for water companies to take responsibility for ensuring that those waters are safe to use, and to protect our young people for the future. The amendments set out a reasonable expectation that a water company must not discharge an emergency overflow within a 1-mile radius of an area used for aquatic sports. The definition of such an area is clearly outlined, and further discretion is provided for the Secretary of State to determine such areas where needed. The amendment would bring much-needed support to our vital aquatic sports.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Catherine Fookes Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Tim Farron]

I will say a brief word on the new clause. This is important, and I would like to add to the detail that my hon. Friend the Member for Witney has set out. Essentially, we have two problems here, one of which is that water companies are not statutory consultees, and they should be. I take the point that it could be more clearly stated, but the new clause does say “When participating” more than once, not “If participating”.

Without pointing fingers—well, maybe a bit at water companies in certain parts of the country, including mine—the key thing is that there is an incentive for a water company, when giving its advice to a planning committee, whether it be in the national parks, the dales, the lakes or a local council, basically to say that everything is fine, and why would it not? If a water company says, “We have no capacity issues. You can build those 200 houses on the edge of Kendal and it won’t cause any problems for our sewer capacity,” two things happen, do they not? First, the water company is not conceding the need to spend any money on upgrading the sewerage network. Secondly, it is guaranteeing itself 200 households that pay water bills, in addition to the ones it already has, so it has a built-in incentive—maybe not to be dishonest, but to not really give the fullest and broadest assessment of the situation.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

I would like to give the hon. Member a practical example of where the absolute opposite has happened in Wales. In my constituency of Monmouthshire, Welsh Water was very clear that, because of the phosphate levels in the River Wye, there could be no development whatsoever in my area of the constituency—Monmouth—for several years. It absolutely stopped all development and seemed to be very honest in doing so. Now the problems have cleared up somewhat, and Monmouthshire county council has put forward a proposal in the local development plan to build houses. We also have a sustainable drainage systems regime, which means that absolutely nothing will be built without those systems. By the way, 50% of the homes will be affordable and they will be 100% net zero, so I commend Monmouthshire county council for putting that forward. I just wanted to say that there are examples where the opposite has happened to what the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is saying.

[Tim Farron]

I thank the hon. Member for the intervention; I am sure that is the case, and the two are not mutually exclusive. I want to see houses built. The great frustration in our communities in the lakes and dales and just outside is that we desperately need homes that are affordable, and we want homes to be zero carbon. We want to be in a situation where the local community is able to hold developers to account. The danger is that developers who are going to build stuff on the cheap that is not affordable to potential buyers or renters are able to get themselves off the hook because the water companies will not really test the resilience of the existing infrastructure.

It is true that both things can happen. We feel that this is about giving planning authorities the power to say, “The developer is seeking to do this, but the community as a whole does not have the resilience or the capacity to cope with 200 extra bathrooms; so what resources will the developer or the water company put in to ensure that the facilities are upgraded to make that possible?” This is about ensuring that planning does its job.

Rivers, Lakes and Seas: Water Quality

Catherine Fookes Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered water quality in rivers, lakes and seas.

Bore da—good morning. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I grew up in the countryside on a farm, and one of my favourite memories was having a friend round, going for a walk and sploshing through the streams at the bottom of the garden. We took it for granted that we could mess about in the Dorset chalk streams, and apart from annoying my mum when I came back inside sopping wet, making a terrible mess, there was never any fear that I would get sick or that I would be wading through sewage. What a change there has been, with parents now too scared to let their children run helter-skelter into the local stream, river or lake, for fear that they will get an ear infection, an eye infection or a stomach infection, or encounter a wet wipe or something much worse.

I moved to Monmouthshire 25 years ago, and it was fantastic to raise my children there, with its fantastic rivers including the Wye, the Usk, the Monnow and lots of smaller rivers criss-crossing the constituency. I have spent so many happy hours, as I am sure other Members have in their local rivers, swimming in the Usk, walking by the Wye and kayaking down it. I have seen kingfishers and heron there and introduced my kids to the amazing wildlife we have, and I have spent some of our happiest days there as a family.

Sadly, the health of our two major rivers, the Wye and the Usk, is in serious decline, and they are really good examples of what is happening elsewhere in the UK. In February 2022, Natural Resources Wales research showed that the Usk had the highest incidence of phosphate pollution of the nine Welsh special areas of conservation, or SACs, designated for rivers. In Glascoed near Usk, there was an average 85% failure rate against phosphate targets between January 2023 and June 2024.

The Wye is being impacted by high levels of phosphates, which are causing a decline in water quality and algal blooms that then starve the fish, plants and invertebrates of oxygen. That leads to biodiversity loss and the collapse of the whole web of life in the river. These algal blooms are growing larger and becoming more frequent. In 2020, a thick algal bloom extended for more than 140 miles of the river. Recovery will take decades.

Natural England’s condition assessment for the Wye SAC in 2023 was “unfavourable-declining”, which was based on declines in Atlantic salmon, water quality and white-clawed crayfish in the Lugg, and aquatic plants, Atlantic salmon and white-clawed crayfish in the Wye.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate on an immensely important topic, and I am grateful to you, Mr Dowd, for allowing a quick intervention from a shadow Front Bencher on a matter of great constituency interest. She will be aware that I and others have tried to fight this battle for at least four years. Will she support my request that the Government look again at the plan for the River Wye and, even if they do not adopt the detail of it, at least preserve the £35 million of funding pledged by the previous Government, or something close to it, to support the restoration of the river?

[Catherine Fookes]

I salute some of the work that the right hon. Gentleman has tried to do locally on the Wye in Herefordshire, even though he is an Opposition Member, but with all due respect, the River Wye action plan was roundly discounted and felt to be not worth the paper it was written on by the non-governmental organisations in the area at the time. The Government failed to consult Wales, and the plan seemed to be rushed out before the general election. When the Minister looked at it, she found that that money was not allocated and available to push out and support the Wye. I am sure she will say later that we have had a meeting with the Wye Catchment Partnership, and that we are working in partnership with the Welsh Government to push forward a plan that has been developed by the Wye Catchment Partnership. I will give some more detail about that in a moment.

Unfortunately, after 14 years of Conservative failure, we have record levels of illegal sewage dumping in our rivers, lakes and seas. I will talk much more about rivers today, because that is what I have in my constituency, but our lakes, seas and coastal towns are also deeply affected.

Chronic ongoing diffuse pollution from agriculture also affects our water quality. In England, only 16% of all assessed surface waters achieved good ecological status, and less than 1% achieved high status. The decline in our water health is staggering, and we desperately need to take action to repair it. As I know hon. Members will agree, there are amazing NGOs, campaigning groups and citizen scientists in every one of our constituencies who have brought this matter to our attention and to the fore nationally. I pay tribute to all of them, especially those in Monmouthshire.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. She is talking about those who are contributing to the debate and trying to do their best, but does she agree that it should not be left to people such as one-time musical celebrity Feargal Sharkey, from my city of Londonderry, and many others to campaign on these issues? We need Government action rather than pressure groups and people trying to campaign for change.

[Catherine Fookes]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I thank him for his intervention. That is exactly why the Government are taking action. I will come on to what the Labour Government are doing shortly. I was fortunate to meet Feargal Sharkey on the campaign trail. He endorsed my campaign, which means that I will be held to account. That is one of the reasons why this issue is so important to me and why I am pleased to have secured this debate.

I believe that the campaigning groups in Monmouthshire are some of the best in the UK. We have Save the River Usk, led by the inspiring Angela Jones, Friends of the River Wye, Save the Wye, the South East Wales Rivers Trust, the Wye & Usk Foundation and many more, and they continue to do excellent work to hold us to account.

We also have the Wye Catchment Partnership, which is a cross-border partnership of more than 70 members, including Natural Resources Wales and the Environment Agency and representatives of all the local authorities, the National Farmers Union and the environmental charities I have mentioned. It is a great partnership. As I have mentioned, the Minister recently had a meeting with the Wye Catchment Partnership to hear about the need for an action plan. I sincerely thank her for her engagement to get the Wye catchment plan phase 2 off the ground. That could be a brilliant pilot project, supported by Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and consistent with the unfulfilled policy commitments of the previous Government’s plan for water. It shows how working with stakeholders across all counties and countries, and the regulators, could be a model for changing the face of our rivers. I hope the Government will support it.

Rivers know no boundaries. The Wye crosses four counties and two countries, so we need an integrated and coherent Wye catchment management plan that uses the best available evidence and a well-targeted programme of remedial measures to get our river cleaned up.

I said that Feargal Sharkey endorsed my election campaign, a key promise of which was to work in this place to clean up our rivers. That is why I am pleased that the Labour Government have done more on water in six months than the Tories and their coalition partners, the Lib Dems, did in 14 years. I am proud of the two main measures that the Government have already announced: the Water (Special Measures) Bill—I am proud to be a member of the Public Bill Committee—and the water commission. The Bill will enable the Government and regulators to block the payment of bonuses to water company executives, bring criminal charges against those who break the law, issue automatic and severe fines, and monitor every sewage outlet.

It is right that the Government have started work on cleaning up our water by tackling our water companies, which the Conservatives failed to do for 14 years, but the next big issue that we must tackle is the pollution in our waterways arising from diffuse agricultural sources. As the water commission’s remit is to look at how to tackle inherited systemic issues in the water sector to restore our rivers, lakes and seas to good health, I am sure the chair, the former deputy governor of the Bank of England Sir Jon Cunliffe, will include diffuse pollution from agriculture in his commission’s investigations.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

I am keen to make sure that the water commission can tackle some of the most egregious failures of the water industry. For example, yesterday Southern Water dumped sewage into the sea alongside Ramsgate. This issue is fundamental to the environment and the economy in a seaside community such as Thanet, and it needs to be part of our overall drive for growth. The new independent water commission needs to explore different governance models and introduce local accountability, or the water companies will continue to fail as they have done up until now.

[Catherine Fookes]

I agree entirely. The Government’s mission is growth. We need to see the cleaning-up of our waterways as an integral part of our growth mission.

We know that tackling diffuse pollution from agriculture will be a hard nut to crack, with farmers already under pressure, but we have examples of good practice in the Wye. For example, Avara is already shipping out 75% of the chicken waste from its Herefordshire chicken farms along the Wye. That is to be welcomed, but it does not solve the long-term problems of too much phosphate in our rivers.

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

I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. I represent Glastonbury and Somerton, and a large part of the Somerset levels and moors is in my constituency. Somerset is always at the forefront of flooding, and many of my farmers are always battling flooding. Grants such as the slurry infrastructure grant helped my livestock farmers ensure that nutrients such as phosphates do not enter the watercourses. That improves the viability of our farms, the health of our soil and the cleanliness of our rivers. Does the hon. Member agree that it was wrong for DEFRA to pause access to those grants?

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. Lots of Members wish to speak today, so we could end up with a two-minute limit on speeches. I ask Members to keep their interventions very short, otherwise the limit will go down to one and a half minutes and then down to one minute.

[Catherine Fookes]

Thank you, Mr Dowd. To continue with diffuse pollution, Lancaster University estimates that around 83% of phosphates in the Wye come from diffuse agricultural sources, and only 15% or so from Dŵr Cymru—Welsh Water—assets. Indeed, Dŵr Cymru’s £80 million investment in AMP 7—an AMP is an asset management period, or the investment round that is done in five-year cycles—and the planned £150 million investment in AMP 8 will eliminate 100% of its fair share of phosphates in the Wye catchment by 2032. By 2030, over 90% of the phosphate load will be from diffuse agricultural sources. It is not sewage that is our main problem here.

I know this will be a hard conversation with farmers, but we need to start having it. We need to incentivise the right fertiliser applications and the right stocking rates in our river catchments on both sides of the border in order to ensure we remove the annual accrual and legacy surplus of excess phosphates and restore our rivers back to full health. Business as usual will not work.

Also, we need better enforcement of existing regulations by both the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales. The RePhoKUs project—the role of phosphorus in the resilience and sustainability of the UK food system—at Lancaster University, which re-focuses phosphorus use in the UK food system, estimates that phosphorus leakage from land to water also causes widespread and costly pollution worth £39.5 billion to the UK economy—a huge external cost that we must try to avoid.

In summary, we have been left a very difficult legacy due to inaction by the Tories. It will take much work by the Government to clear up the mess and the water quality in our rivers, lakes and seas to fix this broken system. I am confident that, by working cross-border and in partnership with all those involved, as the current Government are doing, we can clean up our water once and for all, as the Wye catchment partnership aims to do.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Fookes]

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions that demonstrate the strength of feeling in the House, especially from Labour Members, about the quality of our rivers, lakes and seas. We have had a tour, from Cornwall to Hexham, Whitby and everywhere in between. We heard about the idyllic sounding hidden river cabins and the not so idyllic sounding Up Sewage Creek in Shrewsbury. I thank the Minister for explaining what she is doing to work with us on the Wye catchment partnership. I look forward to all of us continuing to work to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas, so that we restore them to the wonderful quality they should have.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered water quality in rivers, lakes and seas.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

Catherine Fookes Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

In my constituency, I see the distraction in the Environment Agency. We had Storm Desmond more than nine years ago now. The flood defences are being built in Kendal, overseen by the Environment Agency. Meanwhile, eight miles up the road, we have Windermere, which is a centre of great concern because of pollution there. There are only so many things that a small group of people can keep in their head at any given time.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

I think we can safely say that Ofwat is already under review. In my mind, it has until 2030 to deliver everything that we want. We have an independent commission coming up, so I would say that the hon. Member’s new clause is not necessary. We should let the commission report and say what extra steps are necessary.

[Tim Farron]

I thank the hon. Member for her very reasonable intervention. In the extremely unlikely event that the Committee rejects my new clause today, we will of course submit our ideas to Sir Jon Cunliffe and take part in the review, which we welcome. Nevertheless, my point is that the division of responsibility and division of attention, particularly in the Environment Agency as a regulator dealing with flooding and so on, means that it does not have the resource; I know that we will talk about that later. Also, the fact that the regulatory set-up is so fragmented means that the water companies simply run rings around the various regulators.

One final point arising from new clause 20 is that we must outline a potential way forward. We are not convinced at this stage that renationalisation would be affordable or wise. I am not saying that I am opposed to it in principle; it just does not seem wise at this stage to do something that will cost the taxpayer a vast amount and put money in the hands of people who have fleeced us once already. Unless people can come up with a different model, that does not feel like the right way of doing it.

At the same time, the current model of ownership has clearly failed. We suggest a not-for-profit, a community benefit company model or looking at mutuals, but there may be a way of migrating the system towards that model of ownership via what happens at the end of the administration.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Catherine Fookes Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Hudson]

I was referring to the hon. Gentleman’s colleague.

It is therefore worrying that although the previous Administration went to great lengths to ensure that water companies were financially resilient, this Government are doing quite the opposite with Government amendment 1. That amendment, which will leave out lines 4 to 8 of clause 1, would amend the requirement for rules made by Ofwat under the clause to specifically include rules on financial reporting. That could not more clearly delineate the Conservative approach that the Labour party so derided—it promised the British people that it would do things differently—from the actual approach that Labour has taken in power.

Government amendment 1 undermines not only the hard efforts of the previous Conservative Government in taking the issue seriously, but the efforts of the cross-party consensus that secured the commitment to having financial reporting rules made by Ofwat in the Bill. That cross-party coalition, which included my Conservative colleagues in the other place, forced the Government to ensure that the original commitment would be in place in the Bill. Labour voted against the commitment and is simply seeking to overturn a clear cross-party consensus for Ofwat to be given powers to set rules on financial reporting.

Ensuring that Ofwat can view a water company’s financial structuring will help it to scrutinise and have an understanding of how the company is operating. It will also ensure that the consumers who have been let down by the water industry for far too long are protected. With close financial monitoring, water companies will face the necessary scrutiny to reduce the risk that ordinary consumers are left without a supplier. Financial mismanagement poses great risks, so every sinew must be strained to prevent it; financial reporting is key to ensuring that that takes place. The financial resilience of the water companies is not a hypothetical issue, but a paramount concern right now.

As recently as November, Ofwat’s monitoring financial responsibility report identified 10 companies that needed an increased level of monitoring and/or engagement concerning financial resilience. Seven of those companies were placed in the elevated concern category, meaning that some concerns or potential concerns with their financial resilience have been identified. Three companies were placed in the highest category of action required, meaning that action must be taken or is being taken to strengthen the company’s challenges with financial resilience, and therefore they need to publish additional information and report on improvements at a more senior level with Ofwat.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his Government had 14 years to reform Ofwat, during which time they did absolutely nothing?

[Dr Hudson]

I respectfully disagree with the hon. Member. We passed the Environment Act 2021, we gave Ofwat and the Environment Agency more teeth and, as I have said, we were the first party to start measuring and collecting the data that meant we could act on this issue. Moving forward, we are trying to ensure that Ofwat and the Environment Agency use the teeth given to them by the previous Conservative Government to make our waters better. To suggest with Government amendment 1 that Ofwat should not be concerned with financial resilience rules quite simply sends the wrong message to the public, so I urge the Government to reconsider. The Opposition will seek to push Government amendment 1 to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

Given that the Liberal Democrats go to great lengths to display how tough they are on the water industry and how they want accountability, it is disappointing and shocking that they would table amendment 21, which would likewise remove that requirement for a statutory instrument. Why would they also want to support this Government in trying to avoid accountability when it comes to Governments taking action on the water industry and practices? Again, are they haunted by their own record of being in government and doing nothing on this issue? I strongly urge the Government to consider their position on Government amendment 2, which we will also seek to push to a vote. In addition, if it is not withdrawn, we will seek a vote on the third party’s similarly retrograde amendment 21.

[Catherine Fookes]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I take the opportunity to welcome the measures in the Bill, particularly those in clause 1, and to thank the Minister for her really swift work. We know all too well the damage that has been done by water companies and agricultural pollution across the UK. That damage has only been exacerbated by years of Conservative failure, allowing for record levels of illegal sewage dumping in our rivers, lakes and seas.

In my constituency of Monmouthshire, we have the majestic rivers the Wye, the Usk and the Monnow. Armies of citizen scientists, co-ordinated by the wonderful Save the River Usk group in Usk with Angela Jones, have been monitoring the river over the past few years. Sadly, it is getting worse and worse. The levels of phosphate pollution in the River Usk are the worst in all the nine Welsh rivers that are special areas of conservation—SACs.

This Labour Government have only been in office for six months, yet we are already taking more action to tackle the scourge of sewage than the Conservative party did—indeed, more than the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrat party did—when they were in government. Instead of obfuscation and delay, we are getting serious action to end the disgraceful behaviour that we have been discussing. That is especially evident in clause 1, which seeks to ban bonuses for water bosses unless high standards of protecting the environment are met. Water bosses must also involve consumers in decision making. In addition, the clause ensures that failing water bosses will no longer be able to be water bosses. This action is essential if we are to hold water company bosses to account and ensure that they act in the best interests of the public and the environment, rather than in the interests of their own pockets.

I am pleased that in Wales we have the not-for-profit water company Dŵr Cymru. Sadly, however, that status has not stopped the company from leaking sewage. In 2023, we had 2,383 sewage dumping incidents in Monmouthshire, which is 2,383 too many. In 2022, chief executive Peter Perry took home £332,000 and a further £232,000 in bonuses, while in the latest financial year Ofwat had to step in and stop the company from paying out £163,000 of bonuses from customers’ money.

I am sure that I am not alone in recognising the injustice of such bosses’ being paid hundreds of thousands of pounds in bonuses while polluting our environment. It is clear to me that significant Government action and regulation is needed, and the clause delivers it. It finally ensures that the polluter pays. I support it wholeheartedly.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

I am pleased to see you in your place, Mr Vickers.

I am not going to speak to the Government amendments; I merely repeat the very good arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest. At this stage, however, I will just express a couple of concerns that I have about amendment 18, tabled by the Liberal Democrats.

I understand the rationale or the intention behind amendment 18; we all want the water companies to pay closer attention to the interests of their consumers. I note in passing that they already have a statutory duty—a consumer-focused statutory duty—but the actions taken by the Conservative Government over the past 14 years to ask questions about the state of sewage discharges and to get information about them, so as to take effective action to bring them to an end, bring with them an additional need.

The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale highlighted a loss of trust in the water undertakers, and I agree with him on that. There has been a significant loss of trust as their poor behaviour, which was uncovered by the Conservative Administration, has been met with considerable outrage—justifiable outrage—by the Government and by members of the public.

However, I fear that there will be some significant unintended consequences associated with the drafting of amendment 18, relating to the legal obligations of a board member. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale referred to those new positions being on the boards of companies. There are legal obligations that apply to all board members and I question whether the representatives of consumers and of the voluntary organisations that have been so active in this area over the past few years would really want to be exposed to the legal obligations of being a member of the board of a plc, because those obligations are significant and onerous.

Storm Bert

Catherine Fookes Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I know the hon. Lady’s constituents will be very grateful for her championing of their cause, particularly given the flooding that we have seen over the weekend. The funding allocations will be made in the usual way by the Environment Agency, working through its regional flood and coastal committees and engaging with local stakeholders. I am sure that she will make sure her voice and that of her constituents are heard, as she makes a powerful case for funding those flood defences.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will know that my constituency has some of the mightiest and most beautiful rivers, including the Wye, the Usk and the Monnow. But having those incredible rivers means that we are really at risk of flooding. Yesterday we had two severe flood warnings. They have been downgraded today, but there are still five flood warnings, some of which are on the River Wye, which, as my right hon. Friend knows, runs through England and Wales. I want to express my gratitude to Monmouthshire county council, South Wales Fire and Rescue and all those in the community who helped, particularly Darren in Skenfrith, who has been up for 36 hours helping the community. That community has been flooded four times in the last three years. Can the Secretary of State please assure me that he will encourage Natural Resources Wales and the Environment Agency to work together to solve those flooding problems on cross-border rivers?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We need to ensure that the agencies with responsibility for the same rivers or catchment areas and that operate cross-border work as effectively as they can. I will make sure that those points are conveyed to both agencies.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine Fookes Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

I welcome the hon. Member to his place. He raises an incredibly important point. This Government in general are committed to raising standards and rebuilding trust in the justice system. That means regulators working effectively with investigators in the public interest. He will know that, in accordance with long-established practice, it would not be proper for me to comment on the specific case that he mentions, but I can assure him that we will be working to ensure that regulators are working effectively with investigators in the public interest.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

7. What steps she has taken with the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure that the victims’ right to review scheme is operating effectively.

[The Solicitor General]

The victims’ right to review scheme is a vital mechanism for ensuring that victims have the right to request a review of certain prosecutor decisions, either not to start a prosecution or to stop a prosecution. We are continuing to work with our partners, including the CPS, so that the victims’ right to review scheme operates as effectively as possible to deliver for victims the justice they rightly deserve.

[Catherine Fookes]

In my short time in this place, I have been shocked and concerned by the rates of violence against women in my constituency of Monmouthshire. Many constituents have reached out to me for support. I am pleased that the Government are aiming to halve violence against women and girls in the next decade, but can the Solicitor General tell us what proportion of violence against women cases request reviews? How are victims supported through the process, because it is incredibly difficult to maximise their ability to exercise their right to review?

[The Solicitor General]

We are looking at the victim’s right to review scheme closely. It is informing the subject discussions that I hope to have later today with the Director of Public Prosecutions. We are also working closely with the Victims’ Commissioner, who is raising issues around how we might reform this process. I can assure my hon. Friend that the CPS is looking at this matter closely. One thing it is introducing is that where no evidence is offered for the most serious rape and serious sexual offences, that decision is reviewed by a deputy Crown prosecutor before it is taken. That oversight is already producing results.

Budget: Implications for Farming Communities

Catherine Fookes Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

I have been on an extended farm tour for the last five years, and I am sure it will continue.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

In my constituency of Monmouthshire, farmers are anxious and worried. Will my hon. Friend seek to reassure small family farmers by spelling out the figures? Last week, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury said:

“these exemptions mean that if someone has no other assets and is passing it on to a direct descendant, a farm or farming business worth up to £2 million can be passed on without paying any inheritance tax at all.”—[Official Report, 31 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 1036.]

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am very reluctant to offer tax advice to anybody, but the advice I have been given is that the figure may even be more than that. I urge people to look closely at the detail, rather than jumping to the worst conclusion.

Independent Water Commission

Catherine Fookes Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I certainly agree that residents have lost confidence not just in the regulators but in the water system at large, which is why we have set up this commission to look at how we can get regulation that is fit for purpose for the future.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

Diolch, Secretary of State. Monmouthshire must be one of the only constituencies in the UK that did not get a visit from the Secretary of State, but we did get a visit from Feargal Sharkey, which was great. I really welcome the announcement today, especially this new partnership between the Welsh and UK Governments, which, unfortunately, the Conservative Government completely failed to achieve. For example, they brought out the River Wye action plan, which failed to include Wales and had no new money. May I ask the Secretary of State to relook at that action plan, commit to a new one that uses the River Wye catchment partnership groups, the Friends of the River Wye, and all the different civil servants from both sides of the border. Let us then use that group and help clear up the River Wye.

[Steve Reed]

Diolch yn fawr i chi. I would be very happy to visit Monmouthshire. It is important that we look at the situation with water across catchments, particularly where it is crossing borders between England and Wales. The fact that this commission is jointly commissioned by both Governments and will report to both Governments will ensure that is what happens.

Farming and Food Security

Catherine Fookes Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for food security, I have been working across the House to ensure that we work towards affordable food that is available and accessible to everyone. Yet from some of the contributions I have heard from Conservative Members, it is clear that over the past 14 years they have not reflected on how they have failed rural communities. We would not be here today if they had held the mantle on food security. Our farmers already have low confidence because the Conservatives eroded their trust, but our rural communities are not a political football. They deserve respect. They want action, not words. If the Opposition think that rural affairs is tricky ground for those on the Labour Benches, they can well and truly think again. Just look at our new crop of Labour MPs. We won seats right across the country, from Scarborough to south Pembrokeshire. The farming community has firm friends on the Labour Benches.

Let me turn to work that the Government are doing, from unlocking precision breeding to launching a new deal for farmers. The Government’s work on food security transcends the work of a single Department, from seeking to secure a new veterinary agreement to launching GB Energy, which will lower production costs. We are also paving the way on flood resilience. If I may, I will draw on some local context in York. I visited a fantastic carrot farm in York Outer, but I was gobsmacked to hear that in a bad year of flooding it can lose a quarter of its crop. I dread to think about the impacts if we do not turn the tide of climate change. That is why I urge the continuation of critical resilience funds to support farmers like the one I met.

Water scarcity is a critical issue. There are real pressures, despite the wettest 18 months on record. It must be 30 years since we last built a reservoir, and farmers struggle from drought, too.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend said, many Labour Members are supportive of farmers. I am a proud farmer’s daughter and I am delighted to speak in this debate. The previous Government sold farmers down the river. We had disastrous trade deals and they suffer from terrible weather—we can, at least, say that that was not the Tories’ fault. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are to support Welsh farmers, they need a strong financial package?

[Mr Charters]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is a fantastic advocate for her constituents. The agriculture budget is hugely important to protect food security.

Another critical issue is biosecurity, so I was disappointed to see that the Opposition left it out of their motion. At present, the UK has a number of confirmed cases of bluetongue. I was briefed by the deputy chief veterinary officer earlier today. I welcome the Secretary of State’s action on bluetongue serotype 3 vaccines. That, coupled with the exclusion zones policy, is a welcome first response to what is a complex crisis fuelled by climate change—I will not get into the intricacies of midges and the wind from the continent. That is a clear signal that the Government are taking biosecurity seriously.

I want to touch on my recent engagement with Sainsbury’s. I hope colleagues from across the House will join me in welcoming food retailers that put food security at the heart of their business model. I am encouraged by what Sainsbury’s is doing.

I am conscious of time, but I just stress that food is one of the 13 critical national infrastructure sectors in the UK. Food security is national security, so I respectfully say to the Opposition: stop the politics and work constructively with us on food security. It is great to see the Government making progress. I look forward to working with them to safeguard Britain’s national food security.