Water Quality: Sewage Discharge

Debate between Chris Evans and Hywel Williams

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

In September 2021, I stood in this place and called for an investigation into the activities of Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water. I asked for Ofwat and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to investigate its practices. I did this because it has responsibility for parts of the Wirral, Cheshire, Gloucestershire and Herefordshire. My request was based on an appalling record that has seen communities having their water cut off for days and their rivers being polluted with sewage. I am sad to report not only that these calls have been met with a deafening silence but that things have got worse. The Rivers Garw, Tawe, Teifi, Usk and Taff and even the River Wye are six of the most polluted rivers in UK. What they all have in common is that they are the responsibility of Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water. Last month, research found that raw sewage was discharged in Islwyn for more than 9,179 hours in 1,850 sewage dumping events. Natural Resources Wales has said that there will be no salmon in Welsh rivers within 20 years.

What is Dŵr Cymru’s response to this record of shame? It is to reward its chief executive, Peter Perry, with a bonus of £232,000, on top of his basic salary of £332,000. This is a company serving some of the most deprived and isolated communities in the country. When I wrote to him to query his pay, he was proud to tell me that he had worked his way up from being an apprentice. He said:

“My pay is not determined by me. It is not influenced by me.”

He went on to claim that he was pretty much the lowest paid of his peers in England and Wales. Try telling that to the customers who are struggling to pay the second highest bills in the country. Just over the border, Severn Trent Water has some of the lowest bills. The worst thing is that it is impossible to switch suppliers. Mr Perry is not an isolated case. In 2020-21, three executive directors were paid bonuses of £931,000. At the same time, raw sewage was dumped into Welsh rivers 100,000 times. It all adds up to the same thing: Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water is profiting from pollution.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Can the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why the recourse that we are expecting from the Labour Welsh Government on storm overflows is so late?

[Chris Evans]

I think the hon. Gentleman will have to refer that question to the Welsh Government, but I thank him for that little bit of mischief and for the extra minute he has just given me.

It is my sincere hope that, if this motion passes, we will see the end of these unwarranted, unfair bonuses while imposing uncapped fines on the companies that are polluting our beautiful rivers. For me, this goes much deeper than simple profiteering. I grew up along the River Taff, and as I looked into the river, I would see the colours of the rainbow. To my young mind, it seemed that rainbows lived in the river. But they were not rainbows; they were the thick film of oil polluting our rivers. That was over 30 years ago. Since then, our Welsh valleys have become green and beautiful, with our newly emerging tourism industry. It is not uncommon to see people fishing, kayaking and wild swimming, but all those activities are at risk. It is amazing, when we have spent so long cleaning up our rivers, that all that work is being undone by the work of one company.

Although I have to hand it to Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water: it is good at crisis communications. According to the chief executive, in the past year the company has spent over £800,000 on advertising and public affairs. When I spoke out about this 18 months ago, the public affairs officer sent an email defending the company’s practices within minutes of me sitting down. It is certainly busy sending endless emails to politicians.

Employment in Wales

Debate between Chris Evans and Hywel Williams

Tuesday 27th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and to follow the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart). We nearly ran into each other this morning when we were on our daily jog.

Only a fool would not welcome the news that there are 4,000 more people in work this year than there were last year. Even though Wales has the lowest employment rate of any region in Britain, at 68.7%, anybody gaining work can be only a good thing. However, the number of long-term benefit claimants and long-term unemployed remain stubbornly high. It seems that we cannot talk about employment in Wales without mentioning the elephant in the room, which is welfare reform.

For too long our welfare system has been broken. It teaches the wrong values, rewards the wrong choices and hurts those whom it should help. We must offer people on welfare education, training, child care and all the things they need to get back to work. We need to offer them opportunity, but at the same time we must demand responsibility. We know that no one wants to change the system more than those who are trapped in it, such as the single mother who came to see me recently in a surgery in Islwyn who has to work part time because she simply cannot afford to go full time. More than 70,000 people in Wales feel the same way.

We have to end welfare as a way of life and make it a path to independence and dignity. The problem is that the terms of the debate are all wrong and too partisan. Knock on any door in any constituency in Wales, and if it is answered by someone who is in long-term work, they will attack those whom they term “benefit scroungers” and people who make benefits a way of life. The coalition and the Opposition are locked in a battle over the merits of their respective approaches to tackling long-term unemployment. The coalition has set a limit on the annual increases in the majority of benefits; for tax credits it is 1% over the next three years. Only today in an interview, the Prime Minister set out the battle lines when he said that the Tories will reduce the welfare cap to £23,000 if they are elected in May. In fact, he said that that would be the first piece of legislation for any future Conservative Government.

[Hywel Williams]

The Prime Minister has also said that he wants to cut the welfare bill by £10 billion or £11 billion over the next five years. The hon. Gentleman’s colleagues signed up to the welfare measures last week. Does he support that level of cuts over the next five years?

[Chris Evans]

There we go again. I have a lot of time for the hon. Gentleman, but I have just said that we need to change the terms of the debate. The debate is once again about the various approaches, but we are missing the wider picture. Every time that we talk about welfare reform, it becomes about hitting various groups in society. The major problem is not benefit scroungers, but the simple fact that thanks to globalisation—a good thing that is creating more opportunities than ever before for people in Wales, young and old—the labour market has changed beyond all recognition. As we have heard, the recent growth in jobs has been at either the very top or the very bottom. That means low pay at the bottom and high pay at the top, but those in the middle are finding themselves forced out due to what we could call a hollowing out of the labour market. When those people lose their jobs, they encounter tremendous barriers to getting back into work, which forces many families into poverty, and that process will only quicken as the years go on.

We must be honest about the fact that despite attempt after attempt, welfare reform, in all its guises, has failed. Long-term unemployment remains stubbornly high and there are still long-term benefit claimants. At the same time, we carry on debating the belief that there are welfare scroungers abusing the system, but I believe that we need to change the terms of the debate. Policy Exchange recently came up with a programme with three planks that merits further consideration. We need to build self-sufficiency in the welfare system. In the UK as a whole, 60% of households receive more in benefits than they pay in tax, so they are net recipients of state support. That is, in part, the result of the tax credits introduced under the previous Labour Government which, in an attempt to tackle low pay and to eradicate relative income poverty for children, began to support families earning as much as £50,000 a year. Poverty came down, but the problems remain.

There is still a general presumption in the welfare system that the solution to low pay and poverty is to redistribute income through cash benefits. I emphasise that doing so simply subsidises low pay, leads to low wages for recipients and does nothing to encourage progression and self-sufficiency. Future reforms must be built around the principle that income should come from work, not benefits, but that will require reforms to the scope of benefits while ensuring that family earnings increase along with the living wage. There needs to be more support for those who seek to increase their income, but that is sadly lacking from this Government.

We need to build a system on the principle of “something for something”. Although it is important to build a system that encourages self-sufficiency, we must recognise that some families will fall on hard times. Companies will close; that is the way of life and the way of the economy, no matter who is in government. In such times, the welfare system should support people and recognise the contributions that they have already made. The current welfare system does not reflect such contributions. Strengthening the contributory principle through a system of welfare accounts that sit on top of universal credit, which can be drawn down in periods of need, should be a key plank of a “something for something” system that all parts of society believe to be fair.

Employment support is the most controversial part of the system—it is the biggest bugbear in my constituency. The state must get better at helping people to move back to work through a modern system of employment support, and that must begin with an acceptance that Jobcentre Plus has not been effective for some years. Although 75% of jobseeker’s allowance claimants move off benefits within six months, only about half of them are still in work eight months later, while a third are claiming benefits again. The goal should be to support claimants into substantial long-term employment and that should be delivered by providing targeted support for jobseekers not after six months, but from day one of their employment claim.

We should also look at examples such as that in Australia with regard to building and improving the Work programme. That is particularly relevant for groups furthest away from the labour market that currently face being parked without support and still face a real risk of benefit sanctions. Those groups need a new support system that ensures that they have help for the very real difficulties that they face, and that view was backed up by a National Audit Office report on the Work programme in July 2014, which stated:

“The Programme has…not improved performance for harder-to-help groups compared to previous schemes. The Department designed the Programme to help participants whose barriers to employment mean that it is more difficult for them to move into employment. However performance has been similar to previous initiatives and falls well short of the Department’s and bidders’ expectations. Prime contractors have reduced what they plan to spend on the hardest-to-help, with support for these participants lower than for those with better employment prospects.”

We need reforms that build on the three principles that I mentioned to make the welfare state more effective, efficient and fair. That would rebuild support for the welfare state around the principles upon which it was founded by Beveridge all those years ago and ensure that all families receive the support they need to increase their earnings and reduce their reliance on the state. At the same time, it would ensure that those in need get the support they require. As we face the general election, those three principles should be the terms of the new debate on welfare reform.

Wales Bill

Debate between Chris Evans and Hywel Williams

Monday 31st March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart). He is always badgering us—ha, ha, ha!—about the Welsh Assembly.

This Bill is a missed opportunity. It is a Bill of nothing but smoke and mirrors. For too long—since 1999—we have been running around having no satisfaction with the Assembly. We had the Government of Wales Act 2006, which did not settle the constitutional argument. We have had Assembly after Assembly and Welsh Members of Parliament wasting their time talking about constitutional matters. Constitutional navel gazing is okay in the ivory towers of academia, but when the cost of the Silk commission is £1 million, the cost of the Williams report is £155,000 and the cost of the 2011 referendum was £5.89 million, it is time to draw a line. This Bill was our opportunity to do that, but we have had a timid response from a Government who have never, ever secured support in Wales.

[Hywel Williams]

I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman is talking about constitutional navel gazing when all I have heard from Labour Members is speech after speech about the complexities and even the theology of list membership and constituency membership.

[Chris Evans]

I can only speak from my own experience. I use the Blackwood high street test when I go to Islwyn. If I walked down that street now and asked people what they thought of the Assembly, unfortunately I would be met with disinterest from most of them. If I talked about the constitutional arguments we have had today or to anybody tuning in today, they would wonder why we were talking about the Wales Bill. They would be more concerned about health, education and transport than debating giving further powers to the Assembly. That is the simple fact.

What we see in this Bill is an anomaly. On the one hand, we see the Government lifting the ban on dual candidacy, yet they are also banning double-jobbing. It seems to me that there is something fundamentally undemocratic about the way the Welsh Assembly operates. If there is a vacancy or a resignation under the first-past-the-post system, there is a by-election. That is correct; that is the model we follow in this place. However, as the Secretary of State for Wales will know, if there is a vacancy or a resignation from the list, people move up one. That is not democratic; there is no looking for a further mandate.

There are serious problems with our electoral system. First, it is difficult to understand. People in Gwent will say to me, “Why are thousands of Labour votes thrown away and I have a Tory”—or someone from the nationalist party—“representing me, but I’ve not voted for them? What is the point in voting Labour in the first-past-the-post system, yet voting Labour in the top-up system but getting no Labour AMs?” That is the situation we have to face and we are not talking about it. When we talk about dual candidacy, I think basic fairness says that in a race of four people, somebody has got to win and somebody has got to lose. Nobody gets the consolation prize of going to the Assembly.

The most damning case against dual candidacy appears in the impact assessment, which says:

“The Government of Wales Act 2006 modified the original devolution settlement to ban candidates at an Assembly election standing simultaneously in both a constituency and on a regional list. This provision has been considered unfair on smaller parties in Wales who may have a smaller pool of high quality candidates to represent them in elections.”

What the impact assessment is saying is that smaller parties in Wales, such as the Liberal Democrats or the nationalists, might not have enough high-quality candidates to stand; therefore, we should relax the rules on dual candidacy.

I do believe it is right to end double-jobbing. It makes no sense and it does not allow MPs or AMs to represent their constituents effectively. That part of the Bill is right, but the worst thing about the Bill is that we will have to come here again in a couple of years’ time and debate the constitutional settlement. That is turning people off not only the Assembly, but politics in Wales, because all that Wales is dominated by at the moment is constitutional arguments.

And so we come to the great part of the Bill: the devolution of income tax. The Government accepted the Silk commission recommendation that Wales should have the power to vary income tax, subject to a referendum. However, they did not accept the model presented by the Silk commission, which would allow bands to be varied independently. Instead, they would need to be changed in lockstep. If the Government want to commission a report at a cost of £1 million in these economic circumstances, surely they should have included all the Silk recommendations and we could have debated them on the Floor of the House. The devolution of tax-raising powers is not a priority—we can see that in our constituency postbags every week. We need a triple test. We need to talk about the issue of fair funding and a period of assignment to see whether it is in the interests of Wales and the UK to devolve income tax.

We already know that Wales is underfunded to the tune of £300 million, but varying income tax powers will not address the issue of fair funding. Once the power to partially set income tax rates is devolved, the block grant will be reduced by an amount equivalent to the Welsh share of current tax receipts. To accept this power while the block grant underfunds Wales would be irresponsible and lock in underfunding for ever. The Wales Bill does not commit to reform of the Barnett formula either, even though the Secretary of State himself has said that the formula is coming towards the end of its life. Again, that proves that this is only a piecemeal Bill and that we will unfortunately be back here on the Floor of the House, however boring and irritating we find these constitutional debates.

If we are to devolve tax powers, there needs to be further examination by the Treasury and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to see how that will affect tax rates on both sides of the border. When we talk about jobs and the economy, it is also important to note that they are being created only by private sector businesses. We should therefore be speaking to those businesses and asking how their PAYE and payroll systems would be affected by the devolution of tax, but we are not. When we are varying tax powers, we also have to bear in mind that many more people live close to the Wales-England border and have to cross that border than live close to the Scotland-England border. Nearly half the Welsh population lives within 25 miles of the English border, while 10% of the English population live within 25 miles of the other side. That is 6.3 million in total. In contrast, just 4% of the Scottish population live within 25 miles of the English border.