Water Safety

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered water safety.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this morning, Ms McVey. I thank the Minister for attending to hear the points to be made. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on water safety, and I acknowledge the support and co-operation of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), who has been campaigning with me on this issue.

The recent heatwave took many of us to the most beautiful spots in our country: rivers, beaches and lakes. Over that May bank holiday and half-term, many sought to enjoy the unusual weather. As we know, what started as days to enjoy with fun in the sunshine, has since been overshadowed by the unprecedented tragedy of new fewer than 19 deaths. I hope this debate provides a timely opportunity to explore the issues we must firmly grip: water safety education, policy interventions, public awareness campaigns, access to swimming and lifesaving skills, and many other actions that Government can and must take, alongside local authorities, emergency services and water operators, to prevent drownings.

I turn first and most importantly to the catalyst for today’s debate. Each year, on average, drowning claims the lives of more than 600 people in the UK. That is nearly 12 people every week of every year. Hon. Members who have seen such tragedies in their constituencies will know that each one is a beloved family member, friend or colleague. Each one mattered profoundly to those around them, and their deaths have caused deep pain to those left behind. Too many of them are children: 196 children drowned in open water in the past six years alone. That is a classroom full of children every year.

What we saw during the recent heatwave was particularly shocking. Many welcomed the early summer weather and went out, across the country, to make the most of it. We now know that in just over a week, 19 people were confirmed dead, the vast majority—13—of them children.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. On the subject of young children, many of them school age, there was a tragedy close to my constituency in August 2022, when two teenagers drowned. That is an example of what the hon. Member is outlining having happened recently across England. Does he agree that we need to educate young people about the real dangers that exist, even when they think there are none?

[Darren Paffey]

The hon. Member is absolutely right and makes an important point. Following a debate during drowning prevention week last year, I was pleased that it was confirmed that water safety education, including the Royal Life Saving Society’s water safety code, would be added to the national curriculum. We need to see the effect of that in time.

I hope that this will be a pivotal moment for our country to act and do more to prevent such tragedies. Those who died recently are the catalysts for today’s debate, and their names deserve to be heard in Parliament. They are: Declan Sawyer, aged just 15; Reco Puttock, 13 years old; Lillianna Tomlinson, 17 years old; Muhammad Secka, who was just 16; Phil Crow, 68 years old; Junior Slater, 12; David Tita Junior, 17; Rushabh Patel, 28 years old; Samuel Murphy, aged 14; Baltazar L’Quy, 14; Panashe Muchenje, 19 years old; Charlie Noble, 16; Chiedza Nyanjowa, 15 years old; Mackenzie Swift, the youngest at just 11 years old; Greg Howes, 44; George Cuckoo, 15; Palwasha Akbar, 13; and two women who have not yet been named, one aged 60 in Thornton-Cleveleys in Lancashire and another aged 72 who died in West Angle Bay beach in Pembrokeshire. We mourn their tragic loss here. I am sure the whole Chamber will join me in sending our deepest condolences to their families and friends, who have been left heartbroken by their deaths. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Now we must act. It is already devastating enough that in an average year about 30 children might drown in open water in the UK, but 13 in one week? What happened? In many cases, we may never fully know. We do know that, understandably, in the intense heat, it is a pleasure to go for a swim, go out with friends, take a picnic, have a laugh and try to cool down. But we also know, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) said, that there are risks—hidden risks and risks that are not necessarily well known—that could have contributed to those tragedies.

Even when the air temperature is hot—we got up to 34° in parts of the country that week—water temperatures, particularly inland, open water, are still very cold, especially this early in the year. When someone jumps innocently and enthusiastically into the water, seeking relief from the heat, their body can experience cold water shock, which can cause an involuntary gasp, drawing water straight into the lungs. It can paralyse the muscles and stop the heart. Even the strongest swimmer has seconds, not minutes, to react. It is not just the physical response; it is the lack of knowledge of what to do when they get into difficulty that could have led to such an unprecedented number of drownings during that week.

Joe Abbess from my Southampton Itchen constituency drowned three years ago. He was a strong swimmer, a fit and healthy 17-year-old, swimming in a designated area of Bournemouth beach, but he was caught in a very intense and sudden rip current. His mum Vanessa, who has become an incredible campaigner on water safety since, has said that training and educating people so that they know what they might do in those circumstances can make all the difference.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

The story the hon. Gentleman tells of his constituent echoes that of mine. In 2023, Ryan went into the sea with his friend, and they both got caught in a riptide. Ryan’s friend knew what to do in that situation—he knew to float—but Ryan did not. He was not discovered until four days later. His mum, Ren, has become a passionate advocate for making sure we teach young people not just how to swim, but what to do in emergency situations and in open water. She tours schools locally, teaching young people about the dangers of swimming even in designated bathing areas. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the strength that these families often show in the face of absolute tragedy is an incredible testament to their bravery?

[Darren Paffey]

I am so sorry to hear about that situation. I commend Ren and the many other parents who go far beyond any strength I could ever muster, were this to happen to my family. The hon. Lady is right that they are the most powerful advocates, and we must do more to ensure their voices are heard.

In Vanessa’s words,

“We live on an island; people should know the dangers. You wouldn’t cross the road without thinking about it—don’t enter the sea”—

or the river or the lake—

“without thinking about it.”

We also know that when the weather gets better, drownings sadly increase. With summer coming—temperatures are forecast to get up to 29° again this weekend—I urge the Government, all Members here and everyone watching this debate to engage with Drowning Prevention Week next week, and to tell the stories of what can go wrong and how to be safe in the summer.

Summer comes every year—it is not a surprise to us—but we have to be better prepared for what is guaranteed to happen. There are bound to be risks and the question whether individuals know what to do should not be a lottery.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. He is right; summer comes around every year. West Dorset is home to the Jurassic coast—a major tourist attraction—and our population increases by 40% over the summer months. Despite the inter-agency working of Dorset police, Dorset fire service, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the coastguard and Dorset and Somerset Air Ambulance, there is no mechanism in the Government funding formula to recognise that seasonal surge in population. It puts huge strain on the emergency services and volunteers who respond to the kinds of incidents that the hon. Member rightly highlights.

[Darren Paffey]

The hon. Gentleman raises some important points about the gaps that still exist in the jigsaw of different services, support and funding; I will return to that later.

The Royal Life Saving Society is producing a report on the last six years of child drowning deaths data, which will be released next week, Drowning Prevention Week, at our APPG meeting. I encourage everyone to look at that report; it will help us to learn the lessons that we need to.

The Government must play their role in preventing further drownings. I recognise the Government’s decision to include water safety in the relationships, sex and health education guidance last summer. I was grateful that the Minister for School Standards, my hon. Friend the Member for Queen’s Park and Maida Vale (Georgia Gould), visited to meet campaigners, including Vanessa. However, as people who spend our time creating laws and guidance, we know that guidance without some sort of enforcement or support is an aspiration, not a policy.

Will the Minister and the Government accept and recognise that drowning is a preventable public health issue? It kills more than 600 people in the UK every year. It disproportionately effects children. It is demonstrably preventable.

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Darren Paffey]

I will.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

I call Maya Ellis, who has just arrived.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

Before Mr Paffey replies, I should tell all Members that it is rude to join during a speech and then ask a question first thing. It is not the etiquette of the House. Please come at the start of the debate in future.

[Darren Paffey]

I absolutely share my condolences with Junior’s family. I cannot imagine what they will be feeling this week, but I hope this debate will bring forward ideas on how we can prevent drownings.

On the suggestion that my hon. Friend made about providing more for our young people to do, it is partly about that, but it also about having points of contact in addition to school, the family and public campaigns. Youth services, youth engagement and more activities will allow us to perhaps better educate our young people of the risks of drowning and how to deal with the other pressures that they face. By every measure that the NHS uses to prioritise public health action—scale, preventability, health inequalities—drowning prevention belongs on that list.

My second ask is that we take water safety as a priority at the heart of Government. The National Water Safety Forum is preparing to publish updated national drowning prevention strategies in the coming month, but there is no single lead for co-ordinating that work within the Government. Water safety is fragmented across multiple Departments and does not have a single accountable Minister in the same way as, for example, flooding or fire prevention. Ministerial responsibility for water safety and drowning prevention could be added more explicitly into existing roles, or covered by creating a new ministerial brief altogether.

I am grateful to the Minister for responding today. This is not about her as an individual, because I know that she is deeply committed to these issues—but any occupant of her role would not have specific responsibility for water safety. I therefore ask the Government to consider that proposal urgently. One of the new—or the current—Minister’s first tasks should be to convene an urgent, cross-Government roundtable this month, or certainly before the school summer holidays. I know that the National Water Safety Forum and the Royal Life Saving Society have written to the Prime Minister, and I ask the Minister to speak to No. 10 so that we get a swift response to their call.

My third ask is that we give our fire and rescue services in England a statutory responsibility for responding to water rescue emergencies. We all know that they are likely to be the ones who come out to such a 999 call, but it is not their statutory responsibility. We are asking our firefighters, who are already in the water saving lives, to do that job without giving them all the tools. That must change.

My fourth and final ask is for a public awareness campaign. We need one now. Our media, social media, schools, colleges, universities, councils, charities, landowners and water companies must all get behind it before another summer of drownings hits the country. We also need a year-round public awareness and education campaign. I will not repeat the valid points that others have made on that; we can all see the value that it would bring. I welcome the Daily Mirror’s campaign, which I am sure we will hear more about in this debate, and the way that it is bringing this issue to the public’s attention.

I want to speak directly to anyone watching the debate, because the words of the campaigns that the Royal Life Saving Society, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and others have all got behind could save a life this summer: “If someone gets into difficulty in the water, ‘Float to Live’. Fight your instinct to panic and thrash about. The advice is to roll on to your back and float—it buys you time. If you see someone else in trouble, the advice is ‘Phone, Float, Throw’: phone 999, shout to the person in the water to float, help them to stay calm and throw them anything that might help them to float—a rope, a jacket or anything else that is buoyant. ‘Float to Live’ and ‘Phone, Float, Throw’—please remember those six words this summer.”

In conclusion, I come back to the 19 victims of drowning in just one terrible week in this country. Among the many, I come back to Mackenzie Swift, who was just 11 and the youngest in that spate of drownings—younger than two of my children, and younger than the children and grandchildren of many hon. Members. The summer is just beginning. If we leave this Chamber today without a clear plan to act, we will face another debate like this one and we will read out more names. I do not want that. I know that the Minister does not want that. No one wants that. Let us agree today that drowning is preventable. The tools exist, but action must now follow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Paffey]

Thank you, Ms McVey, for your skilful chairing and ensuring that everyone got to have their say. I thank every Member for bringing to life the devastation that drowning causes across this country. We do not and should not accept it as just something else that will rumble on. It is preventable with the right education, the right skills and the ability to swim, but there are clearly barriers holding us back that we must work together to break down. There is more to do. I appreciate the Minister’s response, and there is more to follow up on this, which I will do.

I thank every hon. Member for their contribution and appeal once again for us to tackle this as a national emergency. Let us tackle it for every victim whose name was heard in this Chamber this morning, and for the many hundreds more whose names we did not hear and yet whose families and friends have been devastated by their loss after their drowning death. Let us give drowning prevention the urgency that it deserves, and let us do it for them.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered water safety.

Oral Answers to Questions

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

That is a lot of sound and fury, but this is something the Conservatives were working on in government. This has shades of the deposit return scheme, which was essentially the hon. Gentleman’s legislation, but those on the shadow Front Bench were absent without leave when it came to the vote. We have published a consultation on the land use framework. It has been welcomed by the National Farmers Union and by farmers for giving certainty and security—something that was sadly lacking from the previous Government.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

2. What steps he is taking to increase the accountability of water company executives for service failures.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his service on the Water (Special Measures) Bill Committee. He will know that the Bill creates new powers for the regulator, including banning the payment of unjustified bonuses for water bosses whose companies fail to meet environmental standards and ensuring that imprisonment is a sentencing option where environmental regulators are obstructed. That will hold water companies and their executives to account. In addition, we are doubling compensation for poor service to hold water companies to account for failure in their service delivery.

[Darren Paffey]

I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Many of my constituents in Southampton Itchen have written to me, outraged at the 53% bill increase that Southern Water is proposing at a time when it and others continue to pollute our rivers at an alarming rate. This is simply becoming a national scandal. As part of the work of the coming independent water review, will the Secretary of State ensure that water companies get back to delivering reliable services for customers, rather than lining the pockets of executives and shareholders?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Bills, of course, are going up because the previous Government did nothing as our sewerage infrastructure crumbled and millions of pounds were allowed to be diverted to pay for bonuses and dividends instead of investment. This Government have ringfenced the money earmarked for infrastructure so that this scandal can never happen again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman not only for his question, but for his interest in and attendance at DEFRA questions—we are honoured to have him here. I am very happy to look at what he suggests and to work towards making those proposals work. We know that it is complicated within World Trade Organisation rules, but there is a real prize to be had here.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)]

The first role of any Government is to protect their citizens. Yesterday we announced that we are committing a record £2.65 billion to build and maintain around 1,000 flood defences, to protect lives, homes and businesses—a 26% uplift per annum on what the previous Government were spending. We are immediately using £140 million to unblock over 30 projects that are ready for delivery but stalled under the previous Government. We are launching a consultation to update the funding formula so that we can speed up new schemes and ensure that rural and coastal communities are properly included. The previous Government left our flood defences in the worst condition ever recorded. This Government will put them right.

[Darren Paffey]

Levels of E. coli and faecal matter in the River Itchen remain disgustingly high. I commend the Friends of the Itchen Estuary group for their work to highlight the issue. Like me, they want designated bathing water status in order to protect the river, so will the Secretary of State update us on when that application process will open again and on what changes we can expect?

[Steve Reed]

I pay tribute to the Friends of the Itchen Estuary for their advocacy on this important issue. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ran a consultation on reforms to the Bathing Water Regulations 2013, which closed on 23 December 2024. We are currently analysing the responses and considering how any proposed changes may impact the application and designation process, and we will of course respond fully in due course.

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

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Tim Farron]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We have conferred, and hon. Members will be delighted to hear that we have two proposed new clauses to go and we will not press either to a vote. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney and I may disagree, but I think we have confirmed that that is our view.

I have little to say on new clause 34. We had the substance of this debate on amendment 19, but the new clause is significant all the same. The point is simply that among the things that deeply undermine the public’s confidence in the water companies, and in the industry in general, is the very obvious revolving door between the regulator and the water companies themselves.

I will reiterate some points and add to some things that were said the other day. In its analysis in 2023, The Observer found 27 former Ofwat directors, managers and consultants working in the water industry that they had previously regulated.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

The hon. Member mentioned directors. I think we all agree that the strength of this Bill is its clarity, but in his new clause, he has chosen to write “any individual”. Does he agree that it is the directors, not the catering team, the cleaning staff, the admin people, the accountants and so on, who have sought to swindle customers or flim-flam the taxpayer? That is where we should focus the attention, and that vagueness does not add to the Bill.

[Tim Farron]

That is an excellent point, and if I was pushing the new clause to a vote, that might make me think twice. I am not the only person who has done this, but I have spoken at length on this issue, not just during this Committee, to make the point that we understand that this is a heated debate, which at times has become quite fiery out there in communities and in this place. But the people who work for the water companies, the regulators and so on are human beings doing a job, and we need to value them. That even includes the directors.

Having said all that, it is clearly wrong that directors are switching from one to the other. I add that our research found that the director for regulatory strategy at Thames Water had previously been a senior Ofwat employee. We had a senior principal at Ofwat moving directly from Thames, where they had worked on market development. We also found links between Ofwat and Southern Water, Northumbrian Water and South West Water, including directors and those who work on regulation.

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

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

As well as the environmental and water-related issues that affect coastal communities, there are economic, health and other issues of great importance to them. We believe that there is a strong case for having a person in Government whose specific responsibilities are to take care of our coastal areas, and that the Bill is an opportunity to establish that. My support for the other amendments tabled by Liberal Democrats can be taken as given, but I will allow my hon. Friend the Member for Witney to make the case for them.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I rise to speak in support of clause 3, which deals with defining emergency overflows and reporting requirements. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye, I have the great fortune to live on the south coast and the great misfortune of being in the area where Southern Water is a local provider.

[The Chair]

Order. We are debating amendment 13 specifically, so please restrict your comments to that. I call Charlie Maynard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Maynard]

I will keep this short. I am looking forward to the factsheet, but the Minister will note that new clause 25 focuses on overflows, not emergencies or storms. Frankly, it does not make much difference to a bug, a bunny or a bather whether they get whacked by an emergency overflow or a storm overflow—they are still getting whacked by the sewage. Trying to unify things and get all the issues into one table would be really helpful.

We have already been denied one amendment about flow; I recognise that and will not go on. But quality and flow are important. I am afraid that I find the Government’s position—“We really need to focus on quality, so let’s not talk about flow or install flow meters”—to be spurious. I mean no offence, but it feels like a real let-down that we are not going there now. I do not see any reason why we cannot; respectfully, I think the Government are being flim-flammed by the £6 billion figure.

We talk about sewage treatment works, pumping stations and so on. I have mentioned them already but really want to push the point home because we want to be capturing every overflow, wherever it is. Too often, people talk about works but forget pumping stations and the overflows on the network itself. We look forward to seeing that being covered in the legislation: overflows, works, pumping stations and the network. We will not press the new clause to a Division.

[Darren Paffey]

rose—

[The Chair]

I call Darren Paffey.

[Darren Paffey]

Thank you, Mr Vickers—so keen was I to support the clause that I tried to speak to it too early. I appreciate your forbearance.

Clause 3 has my full support. As I mentioned, I live in an area served by Southern Water. The citizen scientists on the River Itchen have done such good work that they regularly and consistently show that there are unacceptably high levels of faecal matter in the river, even when there has been no storm or emergency. The fleshing out of the requirement for monitoring so that there can be greater accountability is hugely welcome.

Furthermore, my area is entirely relevant to new clause 25 because of the aquatic sports, particularly during the pandemic. A great wild swimming group use the river, and there are also paddle boarders, canoeists and kayakers. I have the greatest respect for them: they go where I would not be willing to at the moment because the levels of illness that people have reported. The stench of what goes into the river also affects local schoolchildren, who cannot play outside. There are all kinds of reasons why the clause will deal with the issues being experienced in my constituency.

We want bathing water status in the area, but that is almost an impossibility at the moment because of the water quality. Again, clause 3 will guarantee the openness, monitoring and forcing of accountability in the area. I welcome the clause and thank the Minister for bringing it forward. The Bill takes action and makes achieving that status much more likely. People in my constituency and beyond, across not only Southern Water’s area but the country, will welcome it too.

[Helena Dollimore]

Does my hon. Friend share my horror at our current situation, in which constituents are getting ear and eye infections from swimming in the sea or rivers? One constituent of mine even attributes their deafness in one ear to an infection they got in the sea. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill is desperately needed for our constituents?

[Darren Paffey]

I share my hon. Friend’s shock and disgust at not only what people are suffering, but the entirely avoidable reasons why people are becoming ill. There are so many benefits to what the clause and the wider Bill can achieve, not just on the issues that Members on both sides of the House have mentioned in relation to trust in our water companies and the use of public money, but for public health. How much more public health benefit could people across all our constituencies experience if they were able to engage with aquatic sports or just enjoy the park areas that surround so many of our rivers, beaches and waterways? I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and am grateful that her point adds even more weight to why this clause is absolutely necessary.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank all Members for their contributions to the debate on clause 3. I reiterate my promise to provide a factsheet and information about the numbers we have used. We have had an interesting debate about the different types of monitors. To clarify, we have emergency overflows, storm overflows, water quality monitors, event duration monitors and volume monitors, which we have discussed. We will make sure that the factsheet provides clarification so that we are all on the same page and understand the debate clearly.

Putting all that to one side, I think we ultimately all agree that it is important to better understand the frequency and duration of discharges from all the emergency overflows. We all think we need to improve transparency and inform investigations by the regulators into potential non-compliance.

Combined with the equivalent duty for storm overflows, which has just come into force, clause 3 will ensure that all sewage overflows on the network are monitored. That will enable regulators and, importantly, the public to see, in near real time, when a discharge from any overflow has occurred and how long it lasted. Water companies will use that information to prioritise investment to mitigate the impact of the most polluting overflows, as guided by the regulators. We have discussed our concerns about volume monitors being more difficult and costly to install. I gave a rather garbled explanation of the difficulty owing to the pipework in the majority of overflows requiring modification. As I said, I will provide further information on those numbers.

Such a large programme of work would take much longer than 12 months. We do not think that this added cost is proportionate to the additional value that volume information would provide, especially given that volume information alone does not provide a comprehensive account of the impact of a discharge—measurement of the water quality is required for that. To repeat a point, I do not want to be a Minister in a few years’ time who has perfected the art of monitoring and done nothing to deal with the causes. That is why the water companies will begin installing continuous water quality monitors for storm overflows, as set out in the price review ’24, to provide further information on the impact of sewage discharges on water quality.

New clause 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, would require capacities for each sewage treatment works and pumping station to be calculated. That is unnecessary because that information is already included in environmental permits and available from the Environment Agency’s public register. The new clause also proposes a general duty for water companies to collect data relating to their performance operating a sewerage system. We do not believe that that broad duty adds any meaningful requirement on water companies beyond their existing duties through the environmental information regulations.

On that basis, I commend clause 3 to the Committee and ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his new clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Nature-based solutions

Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Darren Paffey Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to welcome this much-needed legislation. A couple of weeks ago, I visited Bitterne Park primary school, which is just across the River Itchen from Southern Water’s treatment works. I met the school’s Eco Warriors, an inspiring group of schoolchildren who are passionate about improving their environment. They told me that the stench from the treatment works sometimes makes them feel so ill that they cannot play outside at lunchtime. That is what happens when there are more than 1,000 hours of sewage dumping, as there were last year alone—a 350% increase on the year before. Those children expressed their outrage, and their desire for change, in a way that grown-ups are often less good at. Let us be clear: this is not something that our children should have to accept as normal. That is why I am campaigning for bathing water status for the Itchen, and I would like to work with Ministers to see how we can clean up the river and achieve that.

This is a big local issue, and one that I am determined to try to help resolve, but—as has been made plain by the excellent contributions of other Members—there is no doubt that it is also a national issue, and that private water companies have been treating our rivers with utter contempt. Let us not forget how we got here: 14 years of Conservative failure have left us with crumbling water infrastructure and record levels of pollution. That is the legacy. Instead of addressing the crisis, Conservative Ministers buried the scale of the problem, hiding sewage data and shielding water companies from scrutiny. That is why I welcome the tough new penalties in the Bill, which will ban unjustifiable and undeserved bonuses.

We have seen and heard how water companies have piled up debt and demanded bail-outs from the taxpayer, all the while paying bumper bonuses—more than £41 million since 2020—to executives who fail to meet the most basic standards of competence. Meanwhile, it is my constituents and those of other colleagues here who have paid the price—in higher water bills, and in the frustration of seeing a river that they treasure polluted by negligence. The Bill draws a line under those wasted years. That is what we mean when we say we are a Government of service, because we are not afraid to stand up to corporate interests. We are here in service of the British people. That means long-term investment in our water networks and ensuring that every penny spent benefits customers and the environment, not just shareholders.

I am grateful to the groups that have campaigned to keep these issues on the agenda. Now it is over to this Government of service to finish the job and hold those responsible to account.