River Habitats: Protection and Restoration

Chris Hinchliff Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on his well-made speech opening the debate.

The state of our rivers is a near-perfect metaphor for how badly we have got our priorities wrong as a society. Through a combination of carelessness, greed and wilful neglect, we have managed to poison and exhaust one of the essential elements of life. Not a single one of England’s rivers, which quite literally shape our country, is in good overall health. All of them are polluted with toxic chemicals.

Clean waterways teeming with life—places that can refresh body, mind and soul—should be the absolute right of every English citizen. As it stands, we have squandered the vast natural wealth of our rivers and streams. In doing so, we have robbed the future generations of our nation of the best part of their inheritance. Restoring our rivers and streams is, above all, a question of changing what we mean by growth.

Experiencing the glories of nature is one of the joys that make life worth living. That is what we should be focusing our efforts on—not on abstract GDP figures that mean next to nothing to anyone outside the imagination of the Office for Budget Responsibility. Instead of more chemicals, more concrete, more consumption, we will do far more to improve the wellbeing of all of our citizens from every background by returning to them the burst of mayflies at the start of summer, the chance

“To turn, as swimmers into cleanness leaping”,

as Rupert Brooke once did, without worrying what filth we might be swallowing; or even just the chance to mess about in boats in the streams that once flowed fully, but now have been choked to a pitiful dribble. A more potent symbol of national decline would be hard to invent.

All the polling shows that the public are overwhelmingly in favour of decisive action to restore nature in this country. The inspirational efforts of groups across North East Hertfordshire such as RevIvel, the Friends of the Rib and Quin, and the River Beane Restoration Association prove the grassroots passion for seeing our rivers and especially our chalk streams restored.

My party, the Labour party, should know this deep in its heart. Since the first inception of our movement, the demand of politics by the people for the people has always been to protect the natural world and to open it up to all so that ordinary working-class citizens can enjoy it, too. When politicians constantly attack the very nature that our voters love and the Office for Environmental Protection has to investigate the Government for their utter failure to deliver the statutory targets for rivers to be in good condition by next year—set out in laws that we politicians passed—it is little surprise that faith in politics is so miserably low.

When we make promises to restore nature, we must never again fail to honour our words with action. If that means the Treasury has to adapt its plans, so be it. I will be explicit on this point. I know some people believe that putting more and more power in the hands of profiteering developers will somehow magically resolve stagnant productivity, but our model of speculative house building, combined with the legal obligation for water companies to supply water to new developments, is increasingly incompatible with healthy rivers in many parts of the country. There are environmental limits on the amount of water we can use without wrecking our freshwater systems, but currently we are just pretending that they do not exist. The over-abstraction from the aquifers that feed our precious chalk streams is a clear case in point.

In a country as wet as ours, it should take a true organising genius to produce water shortages, yet a combination of planning, deregulation and a profit-motivated private market has contrived to do just that. It is time for a “chalk streams first” approach that protects them from over-abstraction and for long overdue recognition that genuine, sustainable development means accepting that environmental boundaries cannot be compromised. The truth is, if we measure economic success by the genuine improvement of our constituents’ lives and by the provision of good, meaningful work for all, the restoration of our rivers is in fact a huge opportunity.

My plea to the Minister today is simple: go back to colleagues in the Treasury and tell them about the missing half of the clean jobs revolution. Tell them about the huge expansion in the number of ecologists and conservation experts we need to monitor the health of our rivers and advise our local authorities and hard-working farmers. Tell them about the thousands of skilled jobs needed to re-wiggle our rivers, and tell them to create and maintain riparian buffers such as carr woodland and floodplain meadows around all our waterways. Tell them about the jobs and vast increases in natural capital that could be created across every part of the country by restoring the small waters like ponds and headwater streams, and integrating those crucial areas at the top of river systems into the water framework directive. And tell them about the national mobilisation needed to prevent the next river pollution scandal from the highway run-off filling our rivers with a nightmarish cocktail of microplastics, heavy metals and herbicides.

There are thousands of unpermitted and in many cases barely monitored highway outfalls across the country that must be urgently investigated, maintained and upgraded if we are genuinely to improve the health of our rivers. Collectively, those are tasks that would not just upskill and employ thousands of people, but would immeasurably enrich our nation by restoring our streams and rivers as the crown jewels of England’s countryside that they always ought to have been.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I have seen the hon. Lady’s letter. I will get told off by officials for saying this, but I am basically looking at whether I can come back to the Wye and do something there with everybody. If not, we can do something in Parliament. I went to the Wye last year, and we announced our £1 million research fund to look at what is happening in the Wye. It would be quite nice to go back and see what has been happening. It is on my radar, and I will get her a proper answer in writing.

As Making Space for Water highlights, it is crucial to connect river habitats at the catchment scale. I emphasise the importance of catchment partnerships to improving water quality and restoring natural processes. The partnerships are well established and effective in co-ordinating local collaboration and delivering projects with multiple benefits. They include the Dorset Catchment Partnerships, which is leading work on the River Wey and other Dorset rivers to improve water quality, reduce run-off and restore natural flows.

This is why, earlier this month, we announced that we are investing £29 million from water company fines into local projects that clean up our environment, including doubling our funding for catchment partnerships, providing them with an extra £1.7 million per year over the next two years. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) said, it is essential that we support and pay tribute to the growing number of grassroots organisations and the work they do to protect our natural environment. Doubling funding for catchment partnerships should help them to continue to do that work.

That is part of the Government’s commitment to giving communities greater influence over water environment planning and decision making. Fundamentally, communities know their water areas the best. Through our increased funding, we expect to support more than 100 projects that will improve 450 km of rivers, restore 650 acres of natural habitats and plant 100,000 new trees. The additional funding is expected to attract at least a further £11 million from private sector investment, resulting in even greater benefit for local communities in all hon. Members’ constituencies.

Restoring chalk streams—another of my favourites—is a core ambition of our water reforms. We are home to 85% of the world’s chalk streams. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead, said, we are one of the only places that has so many of them. They are home to some of our rarest, and keystone, species, such as the Atlantic salmon. As the Making Space for Water campaign rightly highlights, protecting keystone species is key to healthy rivers and streams. I could say so much more, but I am conscious that I have been talking for 14 minutes, so I will move on.

[Chris Hinchliff]

I am afraid the Minister has slightly walked into this. Previously in this Chamber, I extended an invitation to her to come and visit RevIvel in my constituency. That is a campaign to restore the Ivel chalk stream. It has a pilot project looking at taking the Chalk Streams First approach, which would potentially restore that aquifer, and not just help the Ivel but see the return of chalk streams that have completely ceased to flow. It would be really exciting to talk to my hon. Friend about that and some of the challenges that people are experiencing with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs water restoration fund. I just put that back on her agenda.

[Emma Hardy]

I did walk into that, didn’t I? I thank my hon. Friend. If he wants to send that through to me, I will of course take a serious look at it. I am very keen to be getting out and about when it is a bit less wet—but rain should be what I am used to.

Restoring the health of our rivers is fundamental to safeguarding nature, supporting resilient communities and securing our water environment for generations to come. The Labour Government are committed to delivering the most comprehensive programme of reform ever undertaken. It involves strengthening regulation, boosting enforcement, investing in innovation, supporting local partnerships and empowering farmers, land managers and water companies to play their part. From national action on agricultural pollution and chalk stream protections, to ambitious local projects in South Dorset, we are driving real, long-term improvements. Together, those measures demonstrate our unwavering commitment to cleaner water, thriving habitats and a healthier natural environment across England.

Water Scarcity

Chris Hinchliff Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I begin by recognising that the Minister takes these issues very seriously, and congratulating the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing this important debate. I agree with him that one would think it would take true organising genius to arrange for water scarcity in a country as wet as ours. Yet water scarcity is not a future risk; it is a constant and present reality. Take chalk streams, which have already been referred to: they are the crown jewels in our natural heritage, but less than a fifth are in good ecological status, and that situation is largely driven by over-abstraction.

The River Ivel in my constituency is one of the most over-abstracted chalk streams in the country. Where once there were boats, watermills and watercress meadows, there is now often little more than a dribble. The nearby Cat Ditch chalk stream mostly no longer flows at all. If we are to deliver on our manifesto commitments to reverse England’s nature crisis, we must ensure that we have a chalk streams-first approach to water resource management, adopted in full.

The second point I will make is that reservoirs alone will not save us. The planned nine new reservoirs up to 2050 will provide around 670 million litres of water a day but, as has already been referred to, our projected deficit is more than 5 billion litres a day. The calculations for existing water resource management plans do not take into account the quenchless thirst of data centres, demanded not by our constituents, but by tech corporations.

The brings me to my third point: we must move towards an economic model and a planning system that respect environmental boundaries and stop acting as though they do not exist. Speculative applications from profiteering developers must be reined in and firmer restrictions put in place where new development would require abstraction at rates not compatible with the good ecological health of our rivers. We must also make more efficient use of grey water. Above all, we need a clear national assessment of the maximum population growth we can absorb in our country, for a future in which both our taps and our rivers still run.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

At the moment, the chief executive needs to focus on getting the boil water notice removed and getting drinking water back into everybody’s house. Of course, the Drinking Water Inspectorate will be doing a full investigation into exactly what has caused the problem and why it has taken so long to resolve. South East Water is responsible for compensating customers. The changes that we introduced to the guaranteed standards scheme mean that for the first time compensation can be given to people who are under boil notices. Under the previous Government someone under a boil notice did not receive any compensation; we have introduced compensation. Customers will be compensated not only for not having water but for the duration of their boil water notice.

On water scarcity, I agree with many of the points that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) talked about the over-abstraction of chalk streams and he is absolutely right that that is crucial. Over-abstraction and pollution are the main causes of problems for our chalk streams. One of the reasons that we have such a demand for future water is because we are committed to reducing abstraction, particularly from our chalk streams. He is right to say that we cannot think just about having the reservoirs; we need more actions, including strong and stringent targets to reduce leakage, and we need to look at all our water needs going forward. He was right to highlight—although there seemed to be some amnesia in the Chamber—the years of under-investment in water and in infrastructure more widely. We are getting on with doing many things that should have been done in the last 14 years.

[Chris Hinchliff]

Briefly, may I encourage the Minister to come to my constituency and see the incredible work being done by the RevIvel campaign, which is trying to restore the Ivel chalk stream? It has a brilliant proposal for a chalk stream-first approach that would restore not just that chalk stream but the whole chalk aquifer and help the Cat Ditch flow again. It would be great to see her there.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend for that lovely invite. Visiting a chalk stream sounds beautiful—perhaps in springtime, when it is looking particularly gorgeous, or in summer.

I agree with so many of the points made—even those made by the shadow Minister—about farming, what we can do to support farmers and how we can make it easier for them to store water on their land. At this moment, I cannot commit to saying exactly where my thinking is on this, but I can say I am looking at it extremely closely: how can we make it easier for farms to become more resilient and for farmers to store water when it rains, so that it is there when they need it? I have also been looking closely at the interestingly titled WAGs—I thought that meant something else entirely, but as we all know stands it for water abstraction groups. I have been looking at how they have been doing some of that work.

Land Use Change: Food Security

Chris Hinchliff Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and my employment by CPRE before my election to Parliament. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing this important debate.

There are fair questions to answer about the effectiveness of planning policies that are supposed to protect our best farmland. They are currently failing far too often, but this is not a new problem, and the Tory record of preserving agricultural land for our food security is, I am afraid, rather shaky. In the 12 years from 2010, we lost more than 14,000 hectares of prime agricultural land to development.

Having listened to Conservative Members speak on this issue many times, I suspect that the debate today is really something of a proxy war. They use the issue of food security as a smokescreen for the fact that they oppose the aesthetic impacts of turning large swathes of our countryside into industrialised landscapes under steel and glass, surrounded by wire fencing and surveillance cameras. I would encourage them to be brave and defend beauty on its own terms.

[Wendy Morton]

I could not resist intervening on the hon. Gentleman about the rationale for this debate. I spoke about food security in the last Parliament, and I gently say that his interpretation of this debate does not resonate with mine.

[Chris Hinchliff]

That is a very fair intervention—I take the point. Indeed, the right hon. Member made some powerful arguments about the beauty of our countryside, and we should be up front about the fact that those aesthetic values are worth fighting for—perhaps I should have put it like that. I do not think my hon. Friends on the Government Benches should scorn that argument either, as protecting the beauty of Britain’s countryside for all our citizens is a proud part of Labour’s heritage. From creating national parks that steward our best landscapes for future generations to launching national trails that are enjoyed by millions and, yes, even establishing the green belt, the Labour movement has always yearned for bread and roses too.

Returning to food security, it has been far too long since we have taken the issue seriously. We have grown complacent in the surety that, as a rich nation, we can import all we want and need. With the worsening climate emergency, however, it would now be entirely unwise to assume that we can continue to rely on those supply chains—when Valencia next floods, we will remember that to our cost—or to step back from trying to achieve net zero. The threat of flooding from climate change to so much of our best agricultural land is too great for that to make any sense, with 95% of grade 1 land in the east of England already at risk of flooding.

We must urgently update our agricultural land classification. The system we use to determine potential farmland productivity is desperately out of date. It uses rainfall data from 1941 to 1970 and temperature measurements from 1961 to 1980. The impacts of climate change are already being severely felt on our farmland and intensive farming is degrading soils, with 5.3 million tonnes of organic carbon lost from our soils every year, so the likelihood is that the current agricultural land classification system substantially overestimates land productivity. We must update it.

Food security is about not just the amount of land under agricultural use, but what we are producing. Food security must mean nutritional security. To take this seriously, the Government must set a clear and measurable target for a higher proportion of our nation’s nutritional needs, according to a recognised diet such as the NHS “Eatwell Guide”, to be met reliably by domestic production to high environmental standards. Achieving that will require national policy to guide substantial changes in the amount and types of food that we produce domestically. The essential element of genuine food security is establishing a national policy framework that provides certainty and incentives for farmers to invest in practices that prioritise nutritional needs and environmental outcomes, but that will likely see their yields fluctuate in the short term.

When we consider energy security, Government contracts for difference ensure a minimum price that gives suppliers the confidence to invest in the production needed to secure national policy objectives. Food security is no less essential than energy security, and farming practices that restore nature are as important as the transition to renewable energy. A Government serious about making genuine food security profitable to produce should establish new contracts for food security based on the contracts for difference mechanism in the energy sector, providing certainty through price floors for the key produce necessary to meet the nation’s nutritional needs. That is how we can achieve genuine food security.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate. We have had valuable contributions from Members across the House. I thank everyone for contributing to this debate on land use and food security, which matters to many of our constituents. May I also use this opportunity to welcome the Minister to her place? I think this is the first time that the two of us have been opposite one another. I would like to work constructively with her as we go forward, to ensure that food security is at the heart of Government policy.

As we all know, land is a finite resource—no one is making any more land—so a national conversation about how we use our land and what use we put it to is crucial. Most importantly, we must ensure that food security is at the heart of that conversation. Right now, as we speak in this Chamber, farmers outside are protesting against the direction in which this Labour Government are taking our food security agenda—most pressingly because of the Budget next week and the issue of the family farm tax, which I will come to. As a result of the choices that the Government have made over the last 16 or so months, we are, quite simply, in a food and farming emergency.

The sustainable farming incentive has been mentioned, but I want to talk to the challenges that many of our farmers are facing to do with cash flow and the cash-flow pressures on our farming businesses. These are the result of the sustainable farming incentive being chopped and the implications of the delinked payments being dramatically reduced to an annual payment of £600 in years six and seven of the transition period. Those dramatically reduced payment rates are having an impact on cash flow. The stopping of capital grants is also having an impact on many of our farming businesses. The end of the fruit and vegetables scheme—it was disbanded with no announcement beyond the end of this calendar year—is also impacting many of our horticultural businesses and has created huge uncertainty for our many farming businesses.

Then there are the taxes announced by the Chancellor, including the dramatic increase in employers’ national insurance and the increase in the minimum wage. That has created a disparity between those on the minimum wage and those wanting to get a bit more, and has imposed a huge additional burden on many of our farming businesses. Business rates relief has been significantly reduced, while the fertiliser tax and the double cab pickup tax have been implemented. Those are all decisions that the Chancellor has made in the last 16 months or so, and which have impacted the cash flow of many of our farming businesses. Banks are now speaking to our farming businesses and wanting certainty that they will be able to service their debt. Why? Because many of our farming businesses have an average rate of return of 1%, if not less—sometimes they do not even break even. They are now therefore struggling to provide certainty to the banks that they will be able to service the debt that they hold.

All that is before we start talking about the family farm tax. Simply reducing a 100% relief on agricultural and business property to a threshold of £1 million will impact every farming or family business across the country. The average size of a farm is about 200 acres. Once we take into account the value of the farm land, the cottage, the growing crops, the stocks in store and the machinery, the value will be well above the £1 million threshold, thereby exposing every farming business to an inheritance tax liability of over 20%—one that they simply will not be able to pay. That is the elephant in the room, which not one of the Labour Members spoke about in their speech, despite this being a debate about food security.

[Chris Hinchliff]

My constituents have raised many of the concerns that the hon. Member has just described about the proposed changes to agricultural property relief, which I recognise. However, will he say whether his party recognises any of the points that the Government are making about that? Do they accept that some improvement could be made to the previous agricultural property relief? Or would the hon. Member just return it to how it was and not make any changes whatsoever?

[Robbie Moore]

Our position on the family farm tax is absolutely clear: the 100% relief on APR and business property relief needs to remain in place. That is why, as the Conservative party, we are absolutely clear that the family farm tax needs to be axed. When we come to the vote on the Finance Bill, I hope that the hon Member will join us on this side of the House and put his words into action by voting against this disastrous tax policy that this Labour Government are bringing about.

It is disappointing that the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), despite being the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on UK food security, did not mention the inheritance tax changes once in his contribution.

Illegal Waste: Organised Crime

Chris Hinchliff Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy]

Again, I share the hon. Lady’s anger about what is happening in our beautiful countryside; we see more and more evidence of illegal dumping. As I have mentioned, the Environment Agency’s total budget for 2025-26 has increased, and it includes £15.6 million for waste crime enforcement, which is a 50% increase. Overall, the Environment Agency has been able to increase its frontline criminal enforcement resource in the joint unit for waste crime and in environmental crime teams as well. It has a wide range of powers, but of course we are always keen to look at what further could be done.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

Alongside our people, our natural heritage is the most important part of our national identity, yet every week, profiteering corporations and organised criminals treat it as a giant dumping ground for pollution and waste. It is these enemies of our countryside, not asylum seekers escaping hardship and persecution, who are the clear and present danger to our nation. Notwithstanding what the Minister has said, the status quo is clearly failing, so how will she ensure that we finally start holding to account all those who trash our environment?

[Emma Hardy]

Again, I share my hon. Friend’s upset and anger about the state in which waste criminals leave our countryside. We are taking forward many measures, but one that I think will be particularly important—the nature Minister was keen for me to mention it—is the digital waste tracking system. This will replace outdated methods of monitoring waste movements in and outside the UK. It will be an excellent way of digitally tracking where waste ends up. Waste holders will record waste movements digitally at each transfer point, making it easier to share with regulators and improve timely compliance checks. This is just one of the many reforms that we will introduce.

Fresh and Nutritious Food: Inequality of Access

Chris Hinchliff Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gordon McKee]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.

It is a problem across the country that frozen food and processed food are cheaper than fresh food. But the problem in Castlemilk is that people cannot even get access to fresh food, let alone that it is more expensive. Despite that, local people have a community spirit and a fighting spirit—they do not give up. Nobody shows that better than the Castlemilk Housing and Human Rights Lived Experience Board. Led by Anna Stuart, it has been campaigning for a supermarket for years. It even went all the way to the UN in Geneva to raise the issue. It told the world of the injustice that, in one of the world’s richest countries, millions are denied the basic dignity of nutritious and affordable food. A group of local residents should not have to go to the UN to ask for access to healthy food.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Ind)]

Does the hon. Member agree that one solution to the problem of access to sustainable and nutritious food would be the right to grow food on public land, as campaigned for by Incredible Edible, forming part of the wider campaign for community rights that is coming to this Parliament?

[Gordon McKee]

The hon. Member makes an interesting point, which I am sure the Minister will address.

It is not just Anna helping the community, but many others. In particular, I would like to mention Maureen Cope, the long-standing chair of Castlemilk community council, who has worked tirelessly for almost 40 years to try to get a supermarket in Castlemilk. Despite “retiring” last year, she continues to fight for access to good food every single day. She is a real community champion. Others include local councillor Johnny Carson, who is in the Public Gallery today, along with councillor Catherine Vallis. They are both fighting incredibly hard for Castlemilk, and have been for a long time.

It is not just adults doing that; it is kids too. The kids at Castleton primary school won an award for their film about the campaign for a supermarket, titled “It’s Just Not Fair.” In it, we follow Annas, a kid at the school who walks to the closest supermarket. In between, there are clips of the kids and parents reading out their biggest challenges: expensive bus tickets, having to eat unhealthy food and being unable to get nappies for babies. Annas finally arrives at the closest supermarket, an Asda, one hour and 15 minutes after leaving his home.

Despite all the hard work by volunteers, as is so often the case, politicians have let the people down. In 2022, the SNP-run council said that a supermarket was “imminent”. It has not been delivered. While SNP councillors were patting themselves on the back for something that would not happen, they were simultaneously cutting the opening hours for the swimming pool, refusing to reopen the indoor bowling club and watching on as the SNP Government closed the police station.

That neglect has consequences. When basic services are stripped away one by one and Governments do not deliver, communities suffer. I am pleased that the Labour Government actually want to fix the problem. There are innovative new solutions, such as tools to direct greengrocers to the worst-affected areas of food deprivation.

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Chris Hinchliff Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 16th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Ind)]

On land and at sea, our natural environment has suffered a soul-crushing collapse over many decades, putting the future of iconic species and entire ecosystems at risk, as was so eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) in a tour de force of a speech. The Government were elected on a clear promise to end that catastrophic decline, the long-term consequences of which, if we do not reverse that trend, will be profound. Our food security depends on healthy ecosystems, the bedrock of our economy is our natural capital, and the public—our voters—cherish our seas, rivers, coastlines, ancient woodlands and national parks. They will not be forgiving of a political system that fails to protect and restore our shared natural inheritance.

The Bill is a particularly vital step towards the renewed protection of our natural environment. It recognises that biodiversity does not obey national borders or jurisdiction, so neither can our duty to safeguard it. As obvious as that truth may seem to the public, let alone conservationists, successive Governments have failed to give the high seas the attention they need. The Bill begins to put that right by at last creating a legal framework for the UK to ratify the UN BBNJ agreement and meet our international obligations in full.

As has been noted, just 1% of the high seas have full protection, and there is still much research to be done on deep sea ecosystems, but they are increasingly recognised as a key global reservoir of biodiversity, so the crucial task is to move the legislation forward quickly and end the crisis engulfing our oceans. Industrial fishing practices such as bottom trawling—the underseas equivalent of ploughing a bulldozer through a wild flower meadow—are tearing apart fragile seabed habitats while trawl nets indiscriminately catch and discard countless non-target, endangered species. Once those species are gone, they will be gone forever, and their entire intricate web of connections will go with them, unravelling irreplaceable ecosystems with profound knock-on effects that we can neither predict nor prevent.

As has been mentioned, if we fail to pass the Bill urgently, the UK will not have a seat at the table for the treaty’s first COP. That would not only represent a dereliction of our international obligations—we have as great a responsibility as any nation to protect global biodiversity—but silence our voice in safeguarding our own national interests, such as the protection of the UK’s 8 million seabirds, over half of which are already in decline. Species such as the albatross and the petrel spend more than 80% of their lives foraging on the high seas. We cannot protect them with action on our own coastlines alone, yet Britain stripped of her seabirds would hardly be Britain at all. Other countries will have their own priorities and national interests to pursue, so our Government must be at the table playing its part in securing the long-term future of the many species that play such an important part in our culture and identity.

I welcome the Bill and the opportunity it creates to discuss nature and biodiversity in this place: a topic of serious debate right now for the public and for the Government. I close by saying again that decisions driven by an ideology that prioritises profit over people and the environment did not just undermine our economy; they wrecked our natural world and our social cohesion. National renewal must mean economic revival, but also once more cherishing those things that make life beautiful, and that means protecting nature. I thank Ministers today for doing just that.

Water Bill

Chris Hinchliff Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 28th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that—I say “Friend” because the right hon. Gentleman and I served very effectively together in Islington when he was the MP and I was a junior councillor for eight years in his patch, so I know his passion in this area.

On run-offs, it is interesting that some councils are still behind on planning issues, so in some areas people are still allowed to pave over their front gardens, and in others they are expected to put in blocks for the tyres of vehicles, with drain-aways or soakaways around them. We need much more of that. I have been involved in that debate for 30 years, and the right hon. Gentleman has been involved for even longer—I bow to his experience—yet we still see challenges in the planning system not allowing for that. We await the full detail of the planning changes, but I really welcome the Government’s move to look at planning differently, ensuring that we are building this sort of resilience into our areas.

We have small areas of flood risk in my constituency, around the Lea valley, so we need to ensure, if it is appropriate to build homes there, that we manage that risk through some of these mitigations. That is very important, because what also happens is that rubbish is washed down from the streets to the canal side—we have just talked about the River Lea—and many of my canal dwellers are concerned, as I am sure are the right hon. Gentleman’s, about the rubbish that has to be collected.

Research by Thames21 and University College London shows that the amount of faecal E. coli bacteria in the River Lea regularly exceeds international standards. It pains me to have to say this, because I love my constituency and think that part of my job is to big it up and tell everyone the great things about it, but sometimes we just have to call out the problems, unfortunately, and this is a real concern.

My constituency is served by Thames Water, of course. Thames Water discharged sewage into the Thames for more than 300,000 hours in 2024, but what is really shocking is that only four years earlier sewage was discharged for just under 19,000 hours—18,443 hours. We thought that was bad and it has exponentially increased, and there is 50% more sewage than in 2023 when sewage was discharged into the Thames for 196,000 hours. London is an international city; it is unbelievable that our river is so dirty and we need to get this resolved.

Nationally, none of our rivers is considered to be in good chemical health according to the Rivers Trust. That means every river in England contains chemicals that are known to cause harm, and figures published just yesterday by the Environment Agency revealed that untreated sewage, including human waste, wet wipes and condoms, was released into waterways for more than 3.62 million hours in 2024. In 2016—just eight years before that data—the comparable figure was 100,533 hours. We are seeing a really big deterioration, and that is why we need to act. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Minister about some of the actions the Government are taking to tackle this.

If sewage on its own is not a reason to look at how we tackle water, the problem of security of supply is a very big concern. I had the privilege of chairing the Public Accounts Committee for nine years, having also served on the Committee for longer, and in 2020 we found that there is a serious risk that the country will run out of water in the next 20 years. We were not a Committee that tended to use hyperbole; we were looking at the facts. We would build our reports on work by the National Audit Office, and we would question witnesses about it. The timescale for that risk was 20 years, so we are already five years into that programme. My hon. Friend the Minister and the Government face a great challenge to try and resolve this in such a short time, because 15 years is not as long as it seems when we are dealing with such big issues.

Security of supply is threatened by increasing demand and diminishing supply. Relevant factors of course include population growth in parts of the country, and urbanisation and development. The point of how we deal with this in planning has been raised and it is absolutely vital that water supply is built into new developments and the new towns the Government are proposing and all the housing developments that we hope to see.

Climate change has obviously been a factor as well, as is unsustainable abstraction when water is removed from the natural environment. I will not try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the issue of chalk streams in this country is a scandal, and once damaged they are gone forever. We have been raping our environment for water company profit and that has to stop. We have also seen growth in water-intensive industries such as data centres, which are causing issues for electricity but also for water, and we need a proper planning process for that. So a lot of this does come back to the Government’s stance in taking a genuinely proactive approach, making sure that planning is not a blocker but actually helps deliver the solutions we need.

In 2022, the Government updated Ofwat’s strategic policy statement to include an objective for the regulator to “increase resilience” in the long term. In 2024, the national infrastructure commission recommended that the Government and Ofwat ensure that water companies’ plans were sufficient to increase water supplies to meet demand for an additional 4,800 megalitres per day by 2050. The numbers are all very well, but we know there is a big challenge now.

The Government will be publishing an updated national framework for water in the summer—I do not think my hon. Friend the Minister ever gets a holiday, with the amount of work that she has to do. Basically, we have water, but not in the places that we need it. We have not built a reservoir for decades. As a child of the 1976 drought—unbelievable, but true—I remember the impact that had on behaviour. In my case, we did not have standpipes in the street, but many families in this country had to go with a bottle to a standpipe in the street to get their water. Water is always a precious commodity, but we really learned that then. We were told not to leave the tap running when washing up or cleaning our teeth. I do not want to lecture people, but we should all keep to those habits. I learned those habits about water preservation at the age of seven—I will admit it—and they have never left me. That was a serious crisis in 1976, but here we are in 2025, facing many of the same challenges. I do not envy my hon. Friend the Minister for the challenges she is seeking to address.

The Government are acting. The Water (Special Measures) Act has been introduced and includes, quite properly, criminal liability for water executives. They cannot hide behind the corporate body and say it was someone else’s fault; we have to have people stepping up. In over a decade on the Public Accounts Committee, I learned that failure is always an orphan. We used to call it “public accounts tennis”. We would say, “Who was in charge? Who was responsible?” and people would all look at each other, waiting to see who would jump forward. Introducing criminal liability sounds draconian, and it is, but it is vital that those who are heading up operations of this importance, and being paid the pay that they are to deliver them, take real responsibility and ensure they have systems in place in their organisations. If the buck stops with them, they will take it very seriously. The criminal liability includes imprisonment for water executives when companies fail to co-operate or obstruct investigations.

The Act also introduces a bonus ban for chief executives and senior leaders unless high standards are met on protecting the environment, consumers and financial resilience. We can talk more about Thames Water in relation to that in a moment. It also introduces automatic penalties for environmental pollution. It ensures that pollution is being measured in real time, because during the last Parliament it was discovered that, for all the talk about measuring sewage, it was not being measured in real time. A lot of the indicators were not there, so it was easy to dodge the real numbers that we are now seeing with the exponential increase in sewage discharge.

The Act introduces an independent water commission as a regulator, which I welcome. The commission was launched in October last year and is chaired by the former deputy governor of the Bank of England, Sir Jon Cunliffe. It is intended to deliver a reset to the sector and is expected to be the biggest review of the water industry since privatisation. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South, who introduced the Bill today, that the commission will be the platform for discussions about the future. Tempting as it may be for him to want to get his Bill passed today, it would not deliver in the timeframe that he would want it to, as that would take a while. Let us take a measured stand and look closely at the independent commission—as I have warned my hon. Friend the Minister, I will be watching it very closely and asking questions about it—because we need to see that overview from every angle. Sir Jon Cunliffe is an independent individual who will be very tough with the Government on this issue.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has criticised the proposal for citizens’ assemblies, saying that we should have the confidence to make political judgments in this House for the future of our water companies. Will she explain why she supports having an independent water commission but does not support the proposal for citizens’ assemblies?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I will not repeat all of the issues about people’s attendance at a citizens’ assembly—the difficulty of achieving it and of people coming to it. I am not sure whether Sir Jon Cunliffe is being paid to do the job—quite often people are not—but he has been given time to devote to it, and also has access to a lot of technical expertise and data. I have spent more than a decade looking at these sorts of reviews and how they collect information. They have powers to receive that information and the expertise to analyse it. I have had the privilege of working with the National Audit Office for a long period of time, and I know the level of expertise that goes into analysing that information, which is quite intense and immense, especially when we are dealing with money, infrastructure and water.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) on introducing a Bill that directly addresses one of the most strongly felt public sentiments in my constituency and across the country. The work he has done on this Bill, with Unison and others, deserves great respect.

I support many of the measures that the Government have swiftly taken to address the failures in our water system since taking power. Blocking bonuses for bosses of polluting water companies to end the absurd financial rewards for the destruction of our natural heritage, and ringfencing billpayers’ money for long overdue improvements to infrastructure are positive steps in the right direction.

[Clive Lewis]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 could have instructed Ofwat to take a far more rigorous approach to the payment of bonuses? At the moment, bosses do not get their bonus if they have a one-star rating. In the last 15 years, every single water company, except one, has had more than a one-star rating, hence they have been able to pay bonuses. Does my hon. Friend think that could have been tightened up?

[Chris Hinchliff]

The Minister is shaking her head, but I agree that it is difficult to see how any boss could qualify for a bonus in the current system.

I would be failing to adequately represent the constituents of North East Hertfordshire if I did not make it clear that they have no faith whatsoever that private water companies, after years of disgraceful neglect, can now be trusted to restore the health of our rivers. The residents who sent me to this place are rightly furious at being asked to pay more to make good the malpractice from which water companies have been profiting.

The public do not want to pay towards rescuing discredited corporations that have spent decades extracting wealth from our countryside and polluting our rivers to the detriment of wildlife, the pleasures of wild swimming, and any ordinary citizen who cares about the natural world. No doubt, some of the activities and profits of these companies have been included in the calculations of our nation’s GDP. Nothing could demonstrate more clearly that, so often, what passes for valuable economic activity in this country in reality inflicts enormous costs on the public, while threatening the very environment that underpins true prosperity and wellbeing for all.

Frankly, it is difficult to disagree with my constituents when they say that, given the damage done by water companies to our rivers through a combination of over-abstraction and pollution, Ofwat is wrong to allow them to charge so much as an extra penny on bills, never mind the staggering 31% increase granted to Thames Water. The residents contacting me about this issue have repeatedly called for water companies to pay for the damage they have done. They say that if the water companies cannot afford to do so without going bankrupt, then let them. And should nationalisation be required as a result, then let Parliament set the appropriate level of compensation for shareholders, netting off not just company debt, but all the dividends shelled out while our rivers and streams have choked with pollution.

I recognise that Parliament is not yet ready to accept the radicalism of the wider public on this issue, but this Bill offers a clear and pragmatic solution both to restoring democratic faith in the management of our water system, and to ensuring that it puts people and nature before profit. The whole saga we have witnessed in our water system means that we can now say, in all candour, that the capitalism of Adam Smith, in which the aggregate of self-interested economic decisions produces the collective good, in so far as it ever did exist, is now just a folk story told to justify the actions of the richest members of our society.

When it comes to our water system, the free market is a myth, and pretending it exists has only served to inject more pollution into our environment and inequality into our economy, as has happened on almost every occasion on which we have privatised one of our nation’s major assets. The Bill offers a solution to reassuring residents in Baldock that the Ivel will flow fully once again; to residents in Buntingford that planning consultations will no longer be waived through, where they will cause already overloaded infrastructure to flood people’s homes with sewage; and to residents in Barkway that effluent will no longer flow into our rivers for hundreds of hours every year.

Something which unites the rivers at each of the locations I have just referred to is that they are all chalk streams. We are proud custodians of 10 of these internationally significant waterways in North East Hertfordshire and I would be remiss not to take this opportunity to ask Ministers to publish the ready-to-go chalk stream recovery pack. It would be a move warmly welcomed by many local groups in my constituency and across the country. I would like to extend an invitation to Ministers to join me in visiting the River Ivel in my constituency to discuss a superb chalk stream restoration pilot project that could be implemented there.

To conclude, the Bill has my full support and I hope that Ministers will reflect its whole spirit in their responding remarks today.

Sustainable Farming Incentive

Chris Hinchliff Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am astonished by the hon. Lady’s contribution. She should be celebrating the fact that so many farmers are now farming in an environmentally sensitive way. I invite her to help us ensure that these schemes work better in future. This is actually a cause for celebration of the benefits of the environmental land management schemes.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

I have also been contacted by concerned and impacted farmers in North East Hertfordshire. Will the Minister assure me that, for the remainder of this Parliament, the revamped SFI that he alluded to will allow farmers to plan seasons ahead, as they need to?

[Daniel Zeichner]

Clearly, over the past five years we have all known that this transition was happening. There was always going to be a point in the transition from basic payments to environmental land management schemes where it would be down to people applying for these schemes. I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns. I encourage farmers to apply early to these schemes. It was a first come, first served scheme before. In future, we will try to ensure that there is a better allocation process, but that is the system we inherited.

Rural Communities: Government Support

Chris Hinchliff Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner]

That is a very long-running debate that goes back over decades. I will do all I can to persuade the Chancellor of the needs of rural Britain.

Project Gigabit continues to be rolled out. It is delivering gigabit-capable broadband to many UK premises, many of which are situated in rural communities that are not in the commercial roll-out plans.

Hon. Members touched on housing. Access to genuinely affordable homes is absolutely essential. The current housing shortage is driving up rents, leaving some of the most vulnerable without access to a safe and secure home. We are reforming planning policy, but I will not try to cover that complicated problem in one minute. Last year, the Government ran a consultation on the national planning policy framework. The response to the consultation reflected on the higher costs of housing delivery in rural areas and the fact that we want more affordable housing in those areas as part of our ambition to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation. We will consider how policy can better promote rural affordable housing and wider exception site policies as part of the work we do to introduce those policies later in 2025.

Hon. Members touched on energy costs, which are a huge challenge for rural areas. I am very aware that fuel poverty rates are higher in rural communities. Many homes are off the gas grid and are therefore more susceptible to fuel price fluctuations.

The hon. Member for South Devon asked about the index of rural deprivation report. I am told that it will be published later this year.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am afraid I will not give way. I am very conscious that I will run out of time.

We will need to look at skills and opportunities in rural areas. I was very struck by the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) made about schools. It was all too typical of my experience of the way rural communities often feel they are left out. We are planning to expand our childcare and early years system, drive up standards and modernise the school curriculum. We will boost rural and agricultural skills by reforming the apprenticeship levy into a growth and skills levy. We will also be opening new specialist technical excellence colleges to give rural people a chance to develop the skills they need to empower rural businesses to play a bigger role in the skills revolution.

The health service is a hugely important issue, and I very much agree with the point my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) made about the 8 am scramble. He is absolutely right, and that is just as important in rural areas as anywhere else. His point about dentistry was very well made; it is being addressed, but much more will need to be done.

Demographics show that as people age, many move out of cities to coastal and rural areas. They will need more care, but they increasingly live in places where it is more difficult to provide it, and that needs to be reflected in the way we approach these issues. Integrated care systems will have a role in designing services that meet the needs of local people, but I heard the point about the algorithm; I will go away and look at that. Most importantly, we need to work with clinicians and local communities to ensure that we get those systems right.

Finally, local government is a huge issue that cannot be covered in one minute, I am afraid, but we are making available significant new funding. That includes £1.3 billion in the local government financial settlement for 2025-26, including £600 million to support the most deprived areas, including in shire districts, through the new recovery grant. Alongside that, our commitments can be judged against a guarantee that no local authority will see a reduction in its core spending power in 2025-26, after taking account of any increase in council tax. That will provide protections so that all authorities, including district councils, can sustain their services between years.

I am absolutely determined to drive forward the rural agenda across Government. This debate gives me some confidence that there is support across the House for that endeavour. I am absolutely determined that rural areas will play a key role in delivering the national missions the Government have set out and will share in the benefits they bring.

Climate and Nature Bill

Chris Hinchliff Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for introducing this important debate. I really admire her commitment to action and to real progress, not grandstanding, because politics is not a game. Politics is real life, and outcomes matter.

As the Member of Parliament for Morecambe and Lunesdale, I want to highlight how the urgent challenges of climate change and the nature emergency affect my constituency, which is a place of natural beauty and ecological importance. My constituency is also well placed to be part of the solution to the climate and nature emergencies, particularly in clean energy generation and stewardship of the land.

Morecambe and Lunesdale is especially vulnerable to climate change. Much of the urban areas of Morecambe and Heysham are low-lying, making them prone to future flooding. Villages such as Halton have already seen the devastation caused by extreme weather. Today, I am holding my breath about whether I will get home—I doubt I will—and what damage Storm Éowyn might wreak on my constituency. My constituency is home to farmers whose livelihoods are dependent on the weather. My farms are mainly dairy and livestock; flooding and extreme weather risk not only business damage, but animal welfare.

The rural areas of my constituency, with land stewarded for generations by our farmers, are exemplars of natural beauty with rolling hills and dramatic limestone eruptions. In my constituency, we have the national landscape of Arnside and Silverdale and a section of the Yorkshire Dales national park with the market town of Sedbergh, the dales’ most populous settlement—that is its claim to fame. My constituency is also home to Morecambe bay, a site of extraordinary natural heritage. Its mudflats, salt marshes and sandbanks support a wide range of wildlife, and it is a double site of special scientific interest. Migratory birds depend on these habitats, as other hon. Members have mentioned. That richness is part of our identity and is reflected in the Morecambe town motto, “Beauty surrounds, health abounds.”

Nature is fundamental to our lives and our livelihoods. The health of our environment is essential to our wellbeing. Climate change threatens our ability to give everyone a good life.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

I make a brief declaration of interest: my former employer, CPRE, supports the Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that the rate of climate change that she is describing in her constituency poses an existential threat to our most loved landscapes, our iconic wildlife species, the pattern of our seasons and some of our most valuable farmland, and that a rapid and just transition is therefore essential for rural communities so that we can hand over our countryside to future generations in some recognisable form?

[Lizzi Collinge]

I absolutely agree. Climate change does not affect just one part of our life, or just one part of the country or the world; it affects all of us, in every single domain. If we are to have a planet that is habitable by humans, we must take action now. As my hon. Friend says, it must be a fair and just transition.

We cannot ignore the risks posed by climate change. Severe storms and rising waters are already threatening our homes. The challenges are growing, and we must take action to protect our communities and infrastructure. Locally, we must be resilient; nationally, we must work at a system level to meet the challenge.

I know that thinking about this can be anxiety-inducing, and I worry for our young people who have grown up with a feeling of existential threat. But I ask Members to reframe this challenge as an opportunity to make people’s lives better, whether through warmer homes, cheaper bills, access to good public transport and good jobs in new industries, or simply by ensuring access to nature for all. It is an opportunity to turn on their head outdated notions of nature as simply the preserve of the rural and turn our urban areas into havens for the natural world. I am a sci-fi fan, and in my wildest dreams, I imagine energy abundance and the progression of technology to the point where we are harnessing and working with the wonders of the natural world—the chemistry, biology and physics that nature uses so beautifully—to ensure plenty and comfort for all.

On a practical point, what I love about the current political discussion on climate and nature is that it has moved away from what felt like a morality play about individual choices to be focused on the systematic determinants of climate change and ecological destruction. Back in Morecambe and Lunesdale, our farmers have always played a key role in managing the land and protecting nature. That is now recognised in policy, with support to manage land to promote biodiversity, improve soil health and reduce carbon emissions. Their work shows how agriculture and conservation can go hand in hand. Last year, the now DEFRA Secretary and I visited a farm in Quernmore that is using natural methods to slow upland water flow using marginal land, which in turn prevents lowland flooding. It also had robot cleaners in the milking shed, which was cool.

How we produce our food is fundamental to our wellbeing and the health of the environment. My farmers are always striving hard for productivity, and they are opening up to new methods of production to address climate and nature concerns. Further north in my constituency, local efforts to protect species such as the red squirrel demonstrate what can be achieved through collaboration. The tentative return of those iconic creatures to our woodlands is a source of pride for our community.

In Morecambe and Lunesdale, we are also providing some of the solutions to the clean energy challenge. As well as wind and solar, Heysham has not one, but two nuclear power stations. Nuclear power has an important role as a low-carbon energy source. It provides always-on baseload energy and is currently the only reliable and scalable technology that is an alternative to fossil fuel baseload.

For those who are not nuclear geeks like me, I will briefly explain what that means. For our grid to work reliably and avoid brownouts and blackouts, we need energy that is always on. Solar and wind, while brilliant technologies, offer variable levels of energy through the day, and our grid does not like that. Also, the demand for energy does not go away when the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining. There are two solutions to that. One is storing energy. There are problems with current battery technology, although I must shout out LiNa Energy, just over the river from my constituency, which is developing sodium-metal chloride batteries that address many of the issues of current technology, and it let me visit the lab.

Returning to always-on energy, nuclear is the only currently available technology. It provides baseload, but without the carbon emissions. It also provides energy density. It is a good use of land in providing energy. In Heysham, nuclear has provided good, unionised jobs for decades. In fact, Councillor Matthew Black at Lancaster city council spoke just a few days ago about how his family has had connections to the power stations for three generations. His grandad was a crane operator on the build, his dad was a toolmaker—one of many connections that I am sure he has with our Prime Minister —and Matthew was a labourer there in his university summer breaks. I take this opportunity to reach out to Members who are not yet convinced of the need for nuclear in tackling climate change. I urge them to review the evidence, to not be bound to shibboleths and to move forward into the future.

I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to tell the House how wonderful Heysham would be for new nuclear. We have the people, the skills, the land and the transport connections. [Interruption.] I will make progress, as I believe you would like me to, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Finally, I will talk about some of the things that this Labour Government are doing. I am proud to sit as a Labour MP on the Government Benches, because I believe we are meeting the huge challenge we face. We are bringing forward game-changing legislation to tackle the climate and nature emergencies. We have an ambitious programme of true change for our country that is practically sound and absolutely implementable.

We have been taking bold steps. We have published the Clean Power 2030 action plan. In our first week in government we lifted the ban on onshore wind. We have consented to nearly 2 GW of solar projects and started a solar rooftop revolution. We have invested in modern technologies, set world-leading targets and reaffirmed our commitment to no new oil and gas. We have phased out coal and confirmed that we will ban fracking. We have set up Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund. We have appointed world-renowned climate and nature envoys. We are showing global leadership at COP29, and we strengthened the energy regulator to ensure that it properly stands up for consumers. In nature, too, our Government are taking bold action.

I would like the House to think about that bold action and join me in supporting the new Labour Government to tackle the climate and nature emergencies.