Water Safety

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank everybody for what has been a really good debate. It shows Parliament at its best when we all try to work together for the same aim, and that is really important. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for securing the debate and for his powerful and moving words. I know him to be an incredibly decent and passionate man who is trying to do his best for his constituents.

With Drowning Prevention Week beginning this Saturday, there is no better moment for this House to turn its attention to keeping people safe in our waters. Next week will also be the launch of the water safety framework, which has been led by the Department for Education.

Before I respond to hon. Members on the policy substance, I extend my deepest condolences to the families and friends of all those who have lost their lives in water. I pay tribute to Sam’s family and the Mirror, who have been leading on this campaign. The fatalities we have seen during recent periods of warm weather, and the tragic deaths raised movingly in this room, underline the urgency of the issue. I pay tribute to the emergency services, volunteers and members of the public whose courage saves lives every day. I also pay tribute to organisations such as the Royal Life Saving Society, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, Swim England and the National Water Safety Forum: their tireless work in prevention, education and rescue deserves the recognition of the House.

I will respond to some of the points made by hon. Members. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) in paying tribute to Luke for his courage. I agree that learning to swim is crucial and so is learning to survive; I will ensure that the points she made on this issue are communicated to the Department for Education.

I join my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) in thanking the RNLI for its work. I am of course happy to pass on her thoughts on the education programme to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and to DFE. I share her concerns about restricting training for kayak rolling. That does not feel particularly sensible to me. We must not let concerns about minor damage get in the way of lifesaving training—I am happy to support there.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) always speaks with such authority and compassion. I join her in paying tribute to York Rescue Boat for its work, and also thank Humber Rescue for its work in my constituency. My hon. Friend is right to raise water quality as a hugely important issue. It is not just about water shock and drowning: the quality of the water can have such a detrimental impact on people’s health. It is important that we do not lose sight of that. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) spoke movingly about the tragic loss faced by her constituent and the importance of us all working together, and I thank her for her speech.

I know my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) has campaigned on water safety for a long time. His ten-minute rule Bill brought this matter to my attention. He has met with me before about the issue and has been completely committed to it. I will take up his points about water company safety equipment personally with water companies. We are doing some work on how to ensure that reservoirs are generally kept safe, so I am happy to take that point away personally.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) spoke caringly about Sam’s law. I am thinking of the best way to achieve that, and whether we need primary legislation or whether we can just do it. Let me take that point away and have a look at it.

In my constituency, Hull city council offers free swimming lessons during the summer for children. I hope that is something that many councils are able to offer. I have a personal frustration that Hull city council has still not opened Pickering Park pool, but I will not bring that into this debate.

[Sarah Russell]

It has been mentioned in this debate that there is great regional inequality, and that children in the most deprived areas are most likely to drown. Interventions solely focused on deprived areas concern me because there are considerable numbers of deprived children in England who do not live in deprived areas. We compound their disadvantage if we focus lifesaving decision making and resources only in those areas. I want to see deprived children across the whole country receive the assistance that they need—they should not be dying.

[Emma Hardy]

Without straying too far from the debate that we are having, the question of inequality is very interesting, especially with the news that the Conservative party wants to get rid of the public sector duty. We are actually looking at whether to expand that duty to include class as an inequality issue. Maybe if class was included in the public sector duty, we could ensure that we prioritise working-class children, who are more likely to drown, to receive the support that they need. However, that may be moving too far away from the topic of the debate.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) speaks brilliantly in every debate that we are both involved in. I agree that it is important that we all learn to swim. He is right to highlight quarries as extremely dangerous to swim in, and how we need to be aware that, even though the water looks calm on the surface, there are dangers underneath.

The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) made an important point about national parks, and gave a thoughtful contribution on how they communicate and the role that they play. I am happy to pass that on to the Nature Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), to have a look at.

Water safety touches on public safety, education, local delivery, the environment and much more. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), said, this issue is held by many different Departments. DEFRA looks at water quality. We look at bathing waters, as has been mentioned. We designate sites and monitor water quality so that people can make decisions about where to swim, but it is right to highlight that, even if somewhere is designated as bathing water, people still need to think about how safe it is to swim there. But our bathing water reforms do, for the first time, require physical safety to be explicitly considered before a site can be designated. That is a meaningful change that we brought in.

We also provide policy oversight and funding to the Canal and River Trust and the Environment Agency, which manage millions of miles of inland waterways. They look at risk assessments on high-risk locations, install lifesaving equipment where it is needed, run targeted safety campaigns, particularly during hot weather, and deliver education programmes, especially for young people. Both organisations support national campaigns such as the National Water Safety Forum’s “Respect the Water”, as well as partner campaigns such as the RNLI’s “Float to Live”, which provides simple, lifesaving advice on what someone should do if they get into difficulty in the water.

This issue is held across Government. In my time as Minister, I have found that sometimes when things are held across Government, they are owned by everybody and nobody at the same time, so I am happy to support my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen in his call to convene a meeting of all responsible Departments, to sort out which actions need to be taken by which Department to move this issue forward.

The Department of Health has responsibility for public health, and there is also the Health and Safety Executive. The Department for Transport, through the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, supports search and rescue, and contributes vital incident data to the national evidence base. Local authorities lead on frontline response and community safety. As many hon. Members mentioned, in education the national curriculum requires primary schools to teach children to swim. Then there are the prevention of future deaths reports and the powerful campaigning of families. The Secretary of State for Education has committed to strengthening water safety education.

Many different Departments need to work together, looking at what they are responsible for and making sure that they action things through their Department. I would be happy to assist my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen in convening that meeting. It is through all these efforts, working together and backed by Government, that we reduce risk, save lives and ensure that people can continue to enjoy our waters safely.

Flood Risk Management in England

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

Investment programme performance in 2024-25 and 2025-26

Between April 2024 and March 2026, the Government invested £2.65 billion to construct new flood schemes and repair existing defences. This investment has made a significant contribution to improving flood resilience across the country.

Following a period of declining asset condition in previous years, this Government have acted to stabilise the condition of flood defence assets. When this Government took office, 92.1% of high consequence assets were at or above their required condition (Q2 2024-25). Thanks to the reprioritisation of £108 million into asset maintenance, this has increased to 93.0% by end of March 2026.

Over the last two years, Government investment has also enabled the completion of new flood defence schemes in every region of England. In total, nearly 62,000 properties have benefited from improved protection against flooding and coastal erosion—almost 10,000 more than the Environment Agency’s target.

Building on this progress, a new investment programme began on 1 April 2026, supported by the new funding rules the Government announced in October 2025. The reforms will make it quicker and easier to deliver the right flood defences in the right places by simplifying our funding rules. They will optimise funding between building new flood projects and maintaining existing defences and ensure that deprived communities continue to receive vital investment.

Targets for 2026-27

In the first year of the new programme, the Government will invest £1.4 billion, which will fund more than 600 projects across the country. This will contribute towards a target of 70,000 properties benefiting from flood risk management interventions by the end of March 2027. “Properties benefiting” is a new metric, replacing the previous “properties better protected”. It will count all properties benefiting from a reduction in flood and coastal erosion risk due to new flood interventions and prevention of risk increases due to maintenance of existing assets. Unlike the previous metric, it will allow us to capture the impact of a wider range of resilience measures, such as nature-based solutions, property flood resilience and sustainable drainage systems.

The Government will also continue to prioritise asset condition. The target for high consequence assets at or above required condition will increase from 92% in 2025-26 to 93.5% in 2026-27.

Investment in 2026-27 will also deliver significant environmental benefits. Projects funded this year are expected to create or improve approximately 800 hectares of habitat and enhance some 250 kilometres of rivers.

The programme will run for ten years to March 2036. During the first three years up to March 2029, the Government will invest £4.2 billion in capital and resource funding.

The Government have committed £7.9 billion capital funding over the whole of the 10-year programme period. Resource funding for the period 2028-29 to 2035-36 will be confirmed at future spending reviews.

This £7.9 billion capital investment, plus the £2.65 billion we spent during the past two years, means that this Government have committed to investing at least £10.5 billion by March 2036.

This long-term commitment will strengthen the nation’s resilience to flooding and provide sustained protection for communities across the country.

Summary of floods funding figures:

£2.65 billion—2-year capital and resource spend 2024-25 and 2025-26

£4.2 billion—3-year capital and resource spend 2026-27, 2027-28 and 2028-29

£1.4 billion—1-year capital and resource spend 2026-27

£7.9 billion—10-year committed capital spend between 2026-27 and 2035-36

£10.5 billion—£7.9 billion committed capital spend between 2026-27 and 2035-36, plus £2.65 billion total spend in 2024-25 and 2025-26

These are spending allocation figures, as announced in February 2025 (£2.65 billion), June 2025 (£4.2 billion) and March 2026 (£1.4 billion). An official statistics publication will follow later in the year providing a more comprehensive summary of floods spending allocations and expenditure from previous years.

Rural flood resilience

This Government are committed to supporting farmers, strengthening food security, and building the resilience of rural communities to flooding. Frequent storms and record rainfall in recent years have highlighted the vulnerability of our farmland and rural communities to flooding and the critical role that well-maintained flood defences and watercourses play in supporting agricultural productivity and rural resilience.

Through the £91 million internal drainage board fund, 94 internal drainage boards have delivered over 270 projects across the country, providing benefits to more than 450,000 hectares of farmland and 250,000 properties. These projects are extending the lifespan of flood assets by an average of 27 years.

The internal drainage board fund has been a considerable success, but I also know that some areas have been hit harder than others by heavy rainfall. This includes Somerset, which I visited earlier this year, to hear first-hand from communities who have been deeply affected.

I am pleased to announce we are providing £50 million to Somerset council to improve local flood resilience. Somerset council will oversee delivery of the funding and will work closely with local partners to deliver local actions. Despite being low lying, and having high water level management costs, Somerset did not benefit significantly from the internal drainage board fund due to the broad ownership of flood assets across the county. This targeted funding addresses this and recognises the unique challenges the area faces. Fund due to the broad ownership of flood assets across the county. This targeted funding addresses this and recognises the unique challenges the area faces.

The funding is in addition to the record level of investment in the flood investment programme.

National forecasting and warning service

Yesterday the latest floods resilience taskforce met, with a focus on improving public engagement with flood risk. Ensuring individuals and communities have the information they need, helps them to understand the risks but also to take the appropriate action.

To support this, the Environment Agency is launching a new national forecasting and warning service. This is a substantial upgrade to England’s flood warning capability, strengthening public safety by delivering clearer, more consistent and more reliable flood forecasts and warnings nationwide.

[HCWS97]

Water Companies

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if she will make a statement on the performance of the water sector.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

I welcome this opportunity to update the House on the progress the Government have made on this important issue. In these divisive times, there are few topics that unite all of us in this House—but water does. We all agree that the status quo cannot continue. Following 14 years of Conservative failure, this Labour Government are turning it around, but there is still lots more to do.

I have been grateful to meet with many passionate campaigners and Members of this House. Recently, that included an engaging meeting with my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) and for Shipley (Anna Dixon). Just last week I met with campaigners from Save Windermere and academics from the People’s Commission on the Water Sector.

People are right to be angry about the problems facing the water industry. Customers have been let down by rising bills, under-investment in creaking infrastructure, supply interruptions and unacceptable levels of pollution in our rivers, lakes and seas.

That is why this Government took action on day one by updating the water companies’ articles of association—the foundational legal documents that outline their internal rules and purpose—to put customers and the environment at their heart. We also established powerful consumer panels to give customers a voice. In week six of this Government, we introduced fundamental reforms through the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, ringfencing customers’ money, banning unfair bonuses, introducing criminal liability for polluting water bosses and creating automatic penalties for wrongdoing. Within a year in office, this Government had changed the guaranteed standards of service, doubling compensation for customers when things go wrong. Following that, we gave the Environment Agency more money and more power to monitor water companies, enabling it to deliver a record 10,000 inspections. After that, we strengthened protections for vulnerable households by changing the reforms around WaterSure to ensure that vulnerable people did not face excessive bills.

No one solution is going to fix the whole water industry. Since I have had the honour and privilege of being in this position, my focus has been on finding the quickest and most effective way to deal with each of those structural challenges. That is exactly why this Government are delivering the once-in-a-generation reform through our clean water Bill to reset the water sector and end the cycle of decline. And because the Government believe in experts, we have also supported the chief medical officer in bringing together a wider expert panel through the public health water taskforce, providing independent and technical advice on risks, alongside the fantastic work done by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ own scientific adviser, creating the science advisory council to look at what we can do around water.

We will deliver on our promise to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas not just today, but for generations to come. These changes are designed to address the structural challenges in the sector and to deliver a cleaner, more resilient and more accountable water system for the future.

[Clive Lewis]

I thank the Minister both for her response and for putting up with me—I am a bit of a broken record on this issue. We are all well aware that water is essential to life itself—to food, industry, nature, housing, energy, and now even the data centres powering the supposed AI revolution—and yet we have handed a monopoly where no competition is possible to companies, many owned overseas, whose overriding priority is profit. The result is systemic failure, with not one major reservoir built and the old ones sold off. That is why we were back in the Chamber last week over South East Water and the drought outages, just weeks into the summer.

Raw sewage has poured into our rivers and seas—3.5 million hours of it in 2024 alone—fouling beaches where children swim. It is why eight-year-old Heather Preen died after contracting E. coli from raw sewage, and why thousands of our constituents are made sick every year. When public anger saw the Government ban bonuses, water execs raised their salaries and rebranded the payouts “retention payments” and that comes on top of the £78 billion to shareholders and £60 billion borrowed, our bills up 40%, and 30p in every pound we pay servicing water companies’ debts instead of fixing pipes.

This was never a market failure. Instead, it is the market working as designed—profits out, sewage in, cost of living up and security of supply decimated. Surely the Minister understands that we can no more regulate privatised water companies than regulate the tide. How many more failures, inquiries and deaths before the Government accept that these problems are systemic and give the public the option of taking their water back?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is right that he has been passionate about this matter for a long time. We have known each other a very long time, and—I have said this to him before—I genuinely admire and respect his passion. I know what it means to him. In fact, he was the person responsible for bringing Julie, Heather’s mum, to meet me when they came to Parliament for a premiere of “Dirty Business”, which I found really moving.

My hon. Friend knows I am going to agree with him on reservoirs. It is shameful that we have not had one built. Our climate is changing: we are facing drought in the summer and we have too much rain in the winter, and yet we cannot seem to hold it. That is a fundamental failure.

He knows my thoughts on South East Water, too, as well as my feelings about competition, which is why I think we should be introducing more new appointments and variations. As I said last week, where a water company might want to transition to a new ownership model such as not for profit, we are committed to developing a transparent process to look at whether that request should go ahead—a process that has never existed before.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

Labour came into government promising major reform of England’s water sector, but progress so far has been slow. The Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 was largely a rebadging of many Conservative reforms. During its passage, we tabled many sensible amendments, including ones to ringfence funding from enforcement fines to a bespoke water restoration fund; to guarantee that companies fixed the environmental damage they caused locally; to require Ofwat to create rules on financial reporting in its remuneration and governance rules; to reduce consumer bills if companies were hit with enforcement fines; and to ensure that companies did not leverage too much debt. Sadly, the Government failed to support those amendments and missed the opportunity to increase accountability.

We on the Conservative Benches have been clear: no one wants to see water companies such as Thames Water collapse. Although water supply would continue, failure would expose taxpayers to billions of pounds of liabilities and drive customer water bills sharply upwards, without addressing the underlying issues. Yet we have seen the third party in this place lead legal action that could have pushed Thames Water to the brink, and both they and Reform appear relaxed about the consequences for consumers and the public purse. Government have to be prepared to step in if a company fails, but that should be a last resort, so can the Minister update the House on the current situation at Thames Water?

Last week, this House again debated further unacceptable water outages from South East Water. With further hot weather expected, what action are the Government taking to ensure that water supplies are not disrupted again and that people, businesses, schools, hospitals and livestock owners will have sufficient water? Turning to the wider systemic issues in the water sector, can the Minister update the House on progress towards delivering new reservoirs and other strategic water infrastructure? Finally, can the Minister explain how the Government are tracking investment commitments across the sector?

[Emma Hardy]

I think the shadow spokesperson managed to read his statement out without actually listening to the answer that I have given. But I am always keen to update everybody on the action we have already taken, so just in case he missed it, I am happy to say it again. We have passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025; ringfenced customers’ money so that it cannot be diverted away from investments; secured £104 billion of private investment to upgrade our infrastructure; given the EA more powers to monitor water companies; banned unfair bonuses; introduced criminal liability for water bosses; introduced automatic penalties; reduced the burden of proof for many offences so that regulators are on the front foot; introduced cost recovery to shift the cost of pollution on to those who pollute; banned the sale and supply of wet wipes; reformed our bathing water regulations; established the water delivery taskforce; more than doubled compensation for customers when things go wrong; and introduced strengthened protections for vulnerable households through reforms to the WaterSure scheme. In fact, I would say that we have done more in 20 months than the hon. Gentleman’s Government did in 14 years.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Minister is absolutely right to say that we are united by our anger about the systemic failures in the water industry, in terms of both financial and environmental regulation, and the under-investment in infrastructure over a long period—although the fact that Welsh Water, a not-for-profit water company, is also a poor performer when it comes to the environment shows that it is simplistic to say that profit is the only issue here.

The Government have rightly addressed one of the issues—the amount of investment going in—but we need to see results from higher bills, and we also need to see regulatory reform as soon as possible. Will the water Bill tackle the environmental failures and also put in place a regime that prevents the kind of appalling indebtedness that we saw with Thames Water, and the industry more generally, and the prioritisation of those debts ahead of delivering for customers?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend for his work as Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. He is right to highlight the under-investment in infrastructure. In fact, some of the problems around resilience are, quite frankly, due to the under-investment in infrastructure, which is why we need to set resilience standards. He is also right that we need to see action resulting from higher bills, which is why we formed the water delivery taskforce to hold the water companies to account for the promises they have made on delivering infrastructure.

On the point about having an integrated regulator, at the moment Ofwat looks at things financially, the Environment Agency looks at the environment and the Drinking Water Inspectorate looks at drinking water. By abolishing that and bringing the regulator into one, we will have an integrated regulator that places the environment, customers and—what has been missing for the last 14 years—public health at its heart, which is incredibly important. Finally, I agree with him about debt levels; that was one of the things in the Sir Jon Cunliffe commission.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Member for his question, but I think it is a misrepresentation—I am sure it was an accident—to say that the Government are doing any kind of deals. The Government are working closely with Ofwat, which is evaluating the consortium’s proposals. Of course, the Government will always have the best interests of customers and the environment at heart. As I have said many times in the House, we stand ready for all eventualities, including applying for special administration if necessary.

[Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)]

In Hastings, Rye and the villages we have had sewage dumped in our sea, two major water outages—lasting five and nine days—Hastings town centre flooded and, last year, as the Minister knows, 300 million plastic beads washed up on our beaches all thanks to Southern Water. Its failures are making people sick, damaging local businesses and tarnishing our livelihood as a seaside economy. That is why so many of the people I represent are fed up with Southern Water, while having to pay more in their bills. They welcome the action that the Labour Government are taking to ramp up regulation, ban bonuses and much more, but they want to know what more can be done. The water White Paper, which she has brought forward, talks about the importance of ownership and opens the door to the Government looking at not-for-profit structures. Could she say a bit more about that?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend, who continues to be a formidable, incredibly impressive campaigner, as she was through her work on the Environment, Food and Rural Committee; honestly, she has been amazing. We have set out our White Paper, and a transparent process will look at whether a new model will go ahead. As the Secretary of State has also said, I have always been in favour of mutuals, and I do not have a problem with not-for-profits, but we need a clear look at the process to see whether that would be in the best interests of customers before any change goes ahead.

[Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)]

Is not the root problem a profound failure of regulation over the last 25 years, for which Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems all bear responsibility? We have regulated for lower prices and more investment, but we have not stopped companies from loading up their balance sheets with debt, which means higher prices and less investment. I am not a believer in nationalisation, because I know from having been Chancellor that the state will never find the £104 billion now promised by the private sector, but if we are to stick with private companies, do we not need to regulate differently so that we have lower prices and more investment?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question—it still feels slightly odd to be on the opposite side of this, with him questioning me. I will gently say that, yes, I do accept the premise of his question—we need tougher and more effective regulation, because the regulation system has failed—but I would have thought that, as the second most powerful person in the previous Government, he might have had an opportunity to act himself.

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

We come to the Chamber almost weekly to highlight the failures of the water sector in our constituencies, but I want to highlight a wider point today. For years, economic policy in this country has been based on trying to achieve growth by unlocking private capital, often from abroad. In this essential sector, we are now seeing the end result: water bankruptcy, environmental devastation, non-existent infrastructure and the public left picking up the tab. What conversations is the Minister having with colleagues across Government, especially in the Treasury, about learning from this monumental failure?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend for his passionate work on this issue. I know how much he cares about the damage that over-abstraction is doing to our environment and to nature. On the water delivery taskforce, we have Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers and Treasury representatives all looking at how we can make the fastest and most effective change to our water system. They look particularly at water infrastructure because, as has been highlighted already, one of the problems is that we have been unable to build the infrastructure we need, which is resulting in damage to the environment now.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Since Mr Speaker allowed me to ask an urgent question on Wednesday last week, to which the Minister helpfully responded, it will not surprise her to know that I have received quite a number of public comments concerning the performance of South East Water, most of which are not repeatable before the watershed.

Two issues clearly have come to light and struck a chord. First, it really is time that the water companies were allowed to act as consultees in planning applications, because we are building house after house after house without saying where the water is going to come from, and of course the water companies have a statutory duty to provide it. The second point that has come through loud and clear underscores something that the Minister said to me, which is that it really is time that every new house built had a grey water system, because we are pouring water that we cannot afford to waste literally down the drain.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for this question, and for his question last week as well. As I mentioned last week, the water delivery taskforce looks at planning. It is looking jointly with MHCLG and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at where we are building homes, whether we have the right water and what water infrastructure is needed. There has been some retrofitting of properties in Cambridge to make them more water efficient, but the right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point about the use of grey water. That is definitely on my agenda.

[Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her statement. Tomorrow, I will be bringing Thames Water’s management into Parliament to answer a simple question: what improvements will my constituents get in return for the increases in their bills? My constituents do not feel they are being treated fairly by Thames Water, and that makes it even more important that Ofwat should reject the current deal proposed by Thames Water’s creditors to let it off the hook for polluting our rivers. Does my hon. Friend agree that fairness in the water sector means that the polluters and their investors have to be the ones who pay, not customers?

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that it should be a matter of fundamental respect to Members on both sides of the House that water companies inform Members of what improvements they are making and where. Each and every one of us will have had emails from our constituents about water bills and concerns about rising prices. The least those companies can do is inform customers where the money is going. I admit that some are, but Thames Water has so far failed to supply my hon. Friend with the information she has requested. I do not think it is unreasonable for her to request it, and I repeat my point to Thames Water that if bills are going up, the least customers should know is what they are going up to pay for.

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

My constituents are disgusted by the sheer volume of sewage dumping that is happening across the River Tawe, the Usk and the Wye. Just two weeks ago, local children became ill after swimming in the Tawe, and the same happened last year in the Wye near Glasbury. Will the Minister listen to the Liberal Democrat calls to require water companies to publish the volume and concentration of sewage being discharged from emergency overflows?

[Emma Hardy]

This point came up repeatedly during the passage of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 and, fundamentally, my response remains the same, which is that the cost and time spent on installing monitors could be more effectively spent and used to prevent this from happening in the first place. That is why we want to focus on delivering the storm overflow reduction plan, which is looking to deliver £60 billion of investment across England by 2050 to reduce the number of overflows. Rather than trying to measure the problem, we are trying to tackle it.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)]

Several barriers to taking water back into public ownership have been floated—pardon the pun—but the myth around the cost has been debunked and the impact on pensions has been dealt with by leading academics. What will it take for the Government to take water back into public ownership?

[Emma Hardy]

I know how much my hon. Friend cares about this issue, and she is right to highlight the concerns of some unions about changes. On nationalisation, as I have already mentioned, the White Paper contains a process by which different forms of ownership can be looked at, but—I do not wish to mislead my hon. Friend—that would involve looking at not-for-profits and mutuals rather than nationalisation.

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

I know you have had your own issues with water, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given the dire ongoing issue with flies in Chailey, water outages due to heat, cold and storms, and a lack of confidence in infrastructure and drought planning, does the Minister think it is acceptable that Southern Water and South East Water remain separate? Would proper joint working and firmer accountability through partnership be the answer for my constituents, who are struggling with higher bills?

[Emma Hardy]

I have huge sympathy for the hon. Lady’s constituents; I remember our discussion of the previous situation, in December and January, and the impact on them all. She is right that the companies should be working more effectively together, and I am keen to support them in sorting out a proper legal agreement over the bulk supply of water from Southern Water to South East Water. Fundamentally, they have a duty under the Water Industry Act 1991 to ensure a supply of water; if they fail to comply with that duty, action will be taken.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

My constituents write to me constantly about the failings of Thames Water—bills going up, but pollution staying the same—and I am glad the Minister is taking a grip of the matter through the taskforce. It is World Oceans Day, and this morning I met several groups that are campaigning on and providing data about the impact of poor rivers on oceans. Can the Minister assure me that she is putting more effort into supporting the Environment Agency so that, as those organisations have suggested, it can better monitor the water and enforce the legislation we have passed?

[Emma Hardy]

Happy World Oceans Day, everybody—that is a good day to have. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, because for years she led the campaign to ban the supply and sale of plastic-containing wet wipes, which were a huge cause of pollution, and we passed that ban partly because of her work. She is right that river pollution leads to problems with the oceans, and as Minister for water, flooding and the oceans, I have an interest in making all that work.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

For more than a decade my constituent Holly, of Ferry Road in Thames Ditton, has watched Thames Water clean up raw sewage from her street, only to be told that the system is not fit for purpose, with nothing ever being fixed. In last week’s heavy rain, human waste flooded two homes and spread to the local primary school. Thames Water’s proposed solution is to wash it straight back into the river, which is unacceptable. This comes on the back of higher bills. Is it not time that the Government put Thames Water on a sustainable footing under special administration, so that it can at last invest in infrastructure, and Holly’s nightmare can end?

[Emma Hardy]

The hon. Lady raises a shocking and awful case, and I am more than happy to meet her and look into it. There is no excuse for sewage ending up in primary schools or floating down the street. I am happy to take that up.

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

Thames Water, which serves my constituency, has had a chequered history—it has gone from bad to worse—and there has been sewage on the streets of Ilford too frequently. When is enough enough? When will we take back control from Thames Water?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, which provides yet another example of the current failure of the system. He is right to feel angry about it. As I have said, the Government are working closely with Ofwat in respect of Thames Water. We stand ready for every eventuality, including applying for special administration if necessary.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I would like to record my appreciation of the consistent campaign waged by the hon. and gallant Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), which included bringing the real-life activists on whom the “Dirty Business” docudrama series was based to the House of Commons where we could meet them. I noted what the Minister said in her reply to him about no new reservoirs being built. Does she think any new reservoirs could ever be built without direct Government intervention?

[Emma Hardy]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important point. One of the things we have been doing through the water delivery taskforce is looking at all the potential barriers in the way of just getting stuff done. That is why it is so important that we have MHCLG on the taskforce alongside DEFRA, because it is about the question not just of financing but of planning. Everybody seems to want reservoirs, but lots of people do not seem to want them to be built—that part of it seems to be the difficulty.

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. We have had to intervene more to look at where the blockages are, at the problems we come up against when we try to get something built, and at how we as the Government can remove some of them so that we can get on with it. We know the climate is changing—we know we are going to have wetter winters and drier summers—so this is becoming even more urgent.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)]

The Minister knows that for decades shareholder returns have been prioritised over consumers, the environment and infrastructure investment, and when the companies ultimately fail, it is taxpayers who have to underwrite them. Given that all the empirical research shows that public ownership would lower financing costs and bills, improve accountability and pay for itself within seven years, why on earth are the Government still prepared to socialise the risks rather than bring water back into public ownership?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend for the passion with which she speaks about this issue. I reiterate that my focus has always been on the quickest and most effective way I can deal with some of the problems in front of me. There are questions over how much nationalisation would cost—we have heard them before—and we know that the water companies have £82.7 billion of outstanding debt.

It is always difficult—again, this probably goes beyond my role and into that of the Treasury—to decide on priorities about what we spend money on, but that is not for one moment to give the impression that I am happy with the status quo or that I think the current situation is good, because I simply do not. It is about how we make the most effective change in the quickest way, which is why having set out in the White Paper a transparent process to look at not-for-profit mutuals and other different models is so important.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

The suppressed report from DEFRA civil servants on critical systems beyond 2030 concludes with high confidence that without “transformational change” Britain’s water and food systems face a realistic risk of “catastrophic failure”. The report highlights that significant parts of the UK already face water scarcity, while high levels of industry debt and woefully inadequate infrastructure investment have undermined system resilience. Can the Minister assure the House that the water Bill will require companies to build long-term climate resilience into reservoir supply networks and waste water systems, so that communities are protected from the climate and water security challenges expected in the coming years and decades?

[Emma Hardy]

The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point, and the short answer is yes. We need clear resilience standards and asset standards, because we do not have them, but, importantly, as he pointed out, those standards need to be fit for the future and not just for today. When we look at what the standards should be, we should think about what will happen to the climate in years to come in terms of overheating and flooding. The hon. Gentleman is quite right: work on that is going on, and he raised an important point.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

Minister, we know that our water company, Yorkshire Water, is a dirty business, flushing sewage into rivers such as the Wharfe and the Aire, with children and others getting ill from swimming in them. But is it not also a broken business, with debt more than four times its revenue, while still paying over £50 million to shareholders last year? What financial studies has the Minister done to look at Yorkshire Water’s viability? Is it not time that the people of Yorkshire have the same say over their water company as the people of Wales?

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is right that we share the same water company. Sir Jon Cunliffe’s commission addressed whether it would be appropriate for the Government to set a level of debt that companies cannot go beyond, because the gearing over the last decade or so has been completely unsustainable. It is making companies act in a way that I do not think is right. That is why the need to look at the debt levels for these companies was included in the White Paper. We need to look at what is a sensible and realistic level for them to hold, to ensure it does not undermine their sustainability or their ability to put customers and the environment first, which should be at the core of everything they do.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

I know that the Minister is acutely aware of the terrible problems we have had with South East Water; we have discussed it recently. It cannot supply water in the winter because it is too cold. It cannot supply water in the summer because it is too hot. The chair and the chief executive have both stood down, but that is a necessary condition for the company to be transformed, not the transformation itself. Can the Minister give us any update she is aware of on how the recruitment process is going to appoint their successors and what role the regulator and the Department will play in that process?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

The hon. Lady wrote to me about the specific difficulties her constituents have faced, and I have huge sympathy with them; that is not acceptable. The regulator will of course be taking a close interest because one issue that South East Water faces is that it is non-compliant with its licence because it was downgraded by Moody’s. Ofwat will be taking a very close interest in what happens with the company because it is not currently compliant. I, too, am very interested in what happens with this company. I have met the interim chair. She has been in post for only a few weeks and is trying to restore relations with Members of Parliament, so I am keen to know from them how that is going. Fundamentally, the hon. Lady is right and what she said was echoed in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: we need not just a change in leadership, but a change in culture and a fundamental change in leadership for that company.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

Parents from my constituency who went to the south coast during the half-term week described how they would not let their children swim in the sea. These are not necessarily beaches that are deemed to be unsafe, but such is the loss of confidence in our water industry that they reacted in that way. There must come a time when we say that we cannot allow water companies to continue to perform in the way that they have consistently been performing, and there must be a way of separating off the debt from the responsibility for running the water companies so that we can take the responsibility of supplying water and leave those companies, who have done extremely well out of the industry, to pay off their own debts.

[Emma Hardy]

As summer comes, we all want to be enjoying our beaches, going for a swim, having a paddle and not having to think about checking an app to see whether they are polluted. My hon. Friend and his constituents are right to feel angry about the current situation. We have told companies that in delivering their storm overflow reduction plan, they must prioritise bathing waters and chalk streams to begin with so that we can make those as safe as possible. Our reforms to bathing waters will help clean them up more quickly, because we want everybody to go out and enjoy the great British seaside this summer.

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

I refer members to my registered interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for infant feeding and inequalities. With water scarcity prevalent across the south-east and poor management of water companies leading to outages across the south, will the Minister consult with her colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to find a route to put new mothers on to the priority services register automatically, because for formula-fed babies there is no option other than a clean water supply?

[Emma Hardy]

That is a hugely important issue. I have already begun to have some conversations, but those were about pregnant women, who obviously should be on the priority services register. There are concerns, as people can imagine, about data sharing and giving permission, but this is a really important point because pregnant women will fall in and out of being a priority, as will formula-fed babies. This is quite tricky because of the problems around sharing information, but it is on my agenda.

[Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)]

For over a decade, I have worked with campaigners in South Shields to stop sewage dumping in our sea. We are still waiting for Northumbrian Water’s compliance plan that was promised to us last year. The industry is broken. Introducing regulations and penalties and blocking bonuses is clearly not working. Will the Minister explain why, despite acting on rail, energy and other industries, the Government are not acting on the strong expert evidence and calls from the public and campaigners to nationalise the water industry?

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend and her constituents have had a terrible time dealing with sewage pollution. I know from the meetings that we have had together with her constituents that it is not good enough that the promised plan was not delivered, and I will urgently follow up to find out what has happened with it. As I have mentioned, in the White Paper we have a transparent process to look at various not-for-profit models.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Southern Water is preparing to dump sewage on a beach in Bembridge, on the Isle of Wight, in a new location. The Environment Agency says that that is okay because there is an old combined sewer overflow pipe there, notwithstanding the fact that it has not been used in decades. Does the Minister agree that that is unacceptable? If she does, what assistance can she and her Government provide to stop this from happening?

[Emma Hardy]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I would be happy to look into it and get back to him. If he wants to have a meeting with me to discuss it further, we can make that arrangement.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

I thank my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), for all his work on this issue to protect the environment and customers. My local supplier is United Utilities and I receive vast amounts of correspondence about its poor performance. To provide a couple of stats, 50.6 litres of water are lost per day per person in the United Utilities network through water leaks, which is the second highest after Thames Water, and in the past five years the average annual water bill for United Utilities customers has gone up approximately 51.6%, while private shareholders in the water industry tend to be doing quite well for themselves. May I urge the Minister to support public ownership of the water industry?

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend cares about this issue and has raised it with me before. He is right to be angry about the issue of leakage, because water that people are paying for is ending up leaking and in the wrong places. We are tracking that leakage target through the water delivery taskforce. When we look at how we ensure that we have the water that we need for houses, growth, the environment and everything else, tackling leakage is one of the core things on which we can take action, and it is something I am committed to doing.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lefarydd. Local people are appalled that there were nearly 95,000 hours of sewage pollution in Dwyfor Meirionnydd last year, to the point where there are dedicated local groups in the constituency. I must mention Forum Llyn Padarn who stepped in to monitor water quality in the magnificent glacial lake in Llanberis, home of the rare Torgoch char. However, we cannot rely on citizen scientists to fix the system in its entirety. What update can the Minister give me on the UK Government’s White Paper plans to devolve further water powers to Wales, so that we have the means to establish a separate independent economic regulator, and further prioritise sustainable water management over commercial interests?

[Emma Hardy]

The right hon. Lady raises an important point, and that lake sounds very beautiful. Conversations are ongoing with the new devolved Government. She knows that the UK Government support devolution wherever we can. The new Welsh Government have only recently been elected, but I assure her that conversations are happening right now about how we will set things up so that Wales will have a separate regulator from England.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

My constituents have been profoundly failed by Thames Water for many years, with frequent leaks and bursts, inadequate investment in our infrastructure, clogged up roads and, to add insult to injury, skyrocketing bills. Thames Water is a failing organisation. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will not accept a proposal to exempt Thames Water from fines for four years? It should be held to the same standards of accountability as the rest of the industry and if it fails, the Government should step in to place it in special administration, with a view to bringing it back under public control.

[Emma Hardy]

Again, my hon. Friend is a formidable campaigner on this issue; she has raised it with me on many occasions both in public and in private, and she is absolutely right to do so. Yes, the rules apply to everybody. The previous Secretary of State stood at the Dispatch Box and made that commitment, and I will make it again. Rules apply to everybody, and that has never changed and will never change under this Government. We are prepared and ready for every eventuality if that is needed.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

South West Water has pleaded guilty to illegal sewage dumping across my constituency, including at Bodmin and Harlyn. It will likely get yet another fine and a slap on the wrist—a cost of doing business. The Water Minister kindly met me recently, but she has confirmed in writing that vital sewerage upgrades will not take place until 2030. If the Government will not push South West Water to speed up its investment plan, will the Minister support my efforts to hold it to account through a group action legal claim?

[Emma Hardy]

I understand why the hon. Gentleman feels frustrated about this issue. Each company will set out through the price review exactly what it will deliver and when, and make priorities. As I have already mentioned in the House, we are prioritising bathing waters, chalk streams and various other areas at the moment, but he is well within his rights as a Member of Parliament to campaign for his area to be moved up and be given greater priority.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

Since 2003, my constituent has suffered multiple incidents every year of raw sewage flooding into his garden. United Utilities is disputing with him how the guaranteed standards scheme works, and he is not receiving adequate compensation. His golden wedding anniversary was completely ruined when he had family over and the garden was literally full of excrement. This situation could not be any worse—it is an absolute disgrace. Although we have strengthened the regulations, our current system is not sufficiently economically damaging to UU to force it to take actions that would solve the problem for my constituent. Will the Minister please meet with me and my constituent to talk to him about this issue?

[Emma Hardy]

I would, of course, be happy to meet with my hon. Friend.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

The Minister will know from our conversations that sewage pollution is a regular problem in Exmouth and Exeter East. However, the Lib Dems on East Devon district council propose to build tens of thousands of new homes, and I do not have faith that South West Water will keep pace with all the new development. We have been bitten before: a new town was built in Cranbrook, and the corresponding sewage treatment network was never built. Will she work with me and the Housing Minister to ensure that we apply a magnifying glass to any plans and push back strongly if South West Water cannot keep pace with delivery?

[Emma Hardy]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Where we are building homes, we need to ensure that they have not only an adequate water supply, but an adequate waste water supply. We are looking at that in the water delivery taskforce, and I am happy to look at the exact example that he has given.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Greedy privatised water companies have caused huge harm by treating our rivers and seas like an open sewer. They have been ripping off the public while doing that and, at the same time, they have handed nearly £90 billion over to shareholders since privatisation. Does the Minister agree that, as is being done with the railways, the water companies need to be taken into public ownership so that they can serve the public good and be run for the public good, not for private profit?

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is right to passionately defend customers and to be angry about the fact that money has been diverted and not used in the most effective way, which it should be. As I have mentioned, we are looking to set up a transparent process to look at various ownership models for water, such as a not-for-profit model.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Last week, South West Water was fined nearly £2 million after pleading guilty to supplying water unfit for human consumption in Brixham in my constituency in 2024. I do not believe that that fine does justice to the impact of the event; people became ill—some were hospitalised—and the economic impact was massive. Repeated fines, some of which are never paid, are not delivering the results that customers want to see. The Minister—a Minister in a Labour Government—says that the customer is the most important priority. Does she agree that it is time to change the ownership model of the water industry so that the customer is prioritised over profit made for overseas shareholders?

[Emma Hardy]

The hon. Lady is right to point out the record fine that was handed out for not having drinking water at an adequate standard, and I pay tribute to the Drinking Water Inspectorate and the work it has done—it does an incredible job of making sure our drinking water quality is among the best in the world. On ownership, the hon. Lady will have heard me say that we are looking at setting out a transparent process in the White Paper for water companies that wish to transition to a different model.

[Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)]

I commend the Minister for coming to the House today to outline the various measures that have been taken, but what this says to me is that the model is fundamentally broken. We need a new model, one that puts people before profits, because people should no longer accept that the public always pay the bills and the shareholder always takes the profit. The issue with water is that we have privatised the profit and nationalised the debt. Bearing that in mind, does the Minister agree that the change people want is a Government who take the right and radical approach and bring our water back into public ownership so that it serves the people, and to stop shareholders being paid a dividend for failure on what is a natural monopoly and a basic human right?

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is right to be angry at the service that many customers have faced for years, and at the broken model we have had for a very long time. We need a fundamental reset—we have already made a huge number of changes since coming into government, and we as the Labour party should be proud of all those changes. As I have mentioned, we are looking at a transparent process for whether requests to move to a new model should go ahead, but that is for models such as not-for-profit.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I have many criticisms of the operating practices of Thames Water, but further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), I am very concerned about the total dysfunctionality in how the planning system interacts with water companies. This is a problem now, even before Buckinghamshire is wrongly asked by this Government to build 95,000 homes. We have seen a lot of development in recent years—in the village of Ickford, for example, the wagon to pump sewage out and take it away by road has already become the norm. Does the Minister agree that if the Government are determined to build all these homes, water companies should get statutory consultee status for all planning applications? Otherwise, they are going to be chasing their tails rather than fixing the problems we already have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

This Government are determined to build the homes that people need. I am sure that every Member has met enough people who are living in overcrowded homes and are desperate to move somewhere else—I know I have. In fact, just on Friday, I was talking to a constituent who lived with his wife, their six-year-old daughter and their two-year-old son in a one-bedroom flat because no other alternatives were available. When we talk about objections to building homes, we never ask people living in overcrowded accommodation how they feel about the number of homes we want to build.

However, on the fundamental point of the planning system and the water companies, the hon. Member is right, and we are looking at that through the water delivery taskforce. As I have mentioned, it is important to make sure we have the water and waste water capacity to build the homes this country needs.

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

In 2025, there were over 300,000 sewage spills into our waterways up and down the country. In March this year, a section of the Stourbridge canal had to be closed due to raw sewage spilling into the water from a broken Severn Trent pipe, killing hundreds of fish. Does the Minister accept that the current model of privatised water companies is failing to protect our natural environment, and as sewage spillages continue, how will her Department measure success in that area? If there is no improvement, when do we say enough is enough?

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue, and I remember hearing about that incident. That is why under this Government, the Environment Agency has carried out over 10,000 inspections of water companies; under the previous Government, the figure was only 4,000, so we have increased the number of inspections. We are also introducing MOT-style inspections so that when the Environment Agency goes into a water company, it can check all the infrastructure, see where the problems are and get the company to tackle them before another awful incident such as the one my hon. Friend has described occurs, where sewage ends up in the wrong place, causing damage to our environment.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

Villagers in Rodmell in my constituency have been without water or had low water pressure for weeks—including during the recent heatwave—with little or no communication from South East Water. Just up the road in Ringmer, residents are really concerned about large-scale house building plans, with little account being taken of the need for additional water infrastructure despite pre-existing problems. Can the Minister tell me what action she is taking to press water companies to communicate properly with customers during outages. May I also press her again on water companies being statutory consultees in the planning system?

[Emma Hardy]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that South East Water’s communication with customers was frankly not good enough, and nor was its communication with Members of Parliament. One thing we are trying to do through DEFRA is to support the work with the local resilience forum to look at how we can improve that communication, so that everybody knows what is happening and when. That way, we can work as a coherent unit, rather than having miscommunication between the different parties involved.

To repeat an answer I have already given, through the water delivery taskforce, we are looking at planning, water supply and waste water supply together when ensuring we build the homes our country needs. I say “our country”, but it is about building the homes that our people—families, adults and children—need. When we talk about house building, we forget about the number of people living in overcrowded accommodation. I am yet to have a conversation with somebody living in overcrowded accommodation who says no when I ask, “Would you like to live in a home rather than the overcrowded one-bedroom flat you are currently in?” Let us remain focused on the families who desperately need the homes we are building. As a responsible Government, we will build them in a way that does not put extra pressure on our water system.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

I will raise with the Minister something that I have already raised with her in a letter about the impact of Anglian Water, another failing water company. There was no water on the hottest day of the year for families in Woburn Sands and the Brickhills. That is a disgrace. Around the same time, there was a lack of water pressure, and the fire and rescue service in Milton Keynes had to bring in water to fight a fire. Does the Minister agree that each and every one of these companies has a story of failure, and it is time we held them to account? I urge her to resist calls to allow failing water companies to determine how many homes can be built in this country. Instead, we should make them do the job that they are there for, which is to give water to each and every one of us.

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I could not have put it better myself. She is right to be cross about problems with water pressure. Instead, we seem to be deflecting the problem by saying, “We should not build the homes we need”. We absolutely should build the homes we need, and we should ensure that the water companies deliver the water for them.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

In 2023, South West Water was fined little more than £2 million for seven pollution incidents dating back seven years at South West Water facilities, including at Kilmington. Now we learn that it has been fined less than £2 million for supplying drinking water in south Devon that left 140 people sick and four people hospitalised. This company had revenue of nearly three quarters of a billion pounds last year. How is the Minister upholding the polluter pays principle when the polluter only has to set aside loose change?

[Emma Hardy]

That was a record fine for not delivering safe and clean drinking water, but the hon. Gentleman is right that what happened there is a serious issue. Issuing fines is a matter for the independent regulators. On making the polluter pay, through our changes to the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 we can recoup the cost of investigation from the company, and we can carry out more investigations, so under this Government the polluter really does pay.

[Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)]

The River Stort is one of our rare and precious local chalk streams, and my residents were rightly furious when they discovered that Thames Water has been pumping sewage into it for hundreds of hours. When I asked Thames Water what it intended to do to remedy the situation, it told me that it had an improvement plan in place and it would not be ready until 2028 at the earliest. That is not good enough. My residents will not stand for that, and neither will I. Can the Minister say a little more about what we can do to hold these water companies to account, to speed up the progress that they are making, and to ensure that we protect our rare chalk streams specifically?

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is right to point out how beautiful and rare our chalk streams are. In fact, they are often known as our rainforests, because England is one of the only places in the world where we find chalk streams. He is right to be angry about Thames Water polluting them. Under the rules that we have set under this Government, we have prioritised chalk streams and bathing waters as an issue of public safety and protecting the environment. If Thames Water is not doing that, I am keen for my hon. Friend to write to me with the specifics, and I will take it up with the company.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

In my constituency, sewage was spilt from the Arborfield treatment works 28 times last year, and in the last few days sewage has poured into the Emm brook. Given the numerous repeated sewage spillages in Wokingham and across the country, will the Minister back the Liberal Democrat proposals for a mutually owned public benefit model for water companies, focusing investment on the environment, customers and replacing and repairing infrastructure rather than on lining the pockets of water company shareholders and senior managers?

[Emma Hardy]

The Government are, of course, determined to tackle the sewage scandal head-on and clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good. We want to address the root cause of pollution. We are shifting the focus to a dual approach, driving water company action and pre-pipe solutions, tackling sewer misuse and pushing for better rainwater management. These changes are more sustainable, enabling growth, delivering more benefits, reducing flood risk and protecting biodiversity. We will hold companies to account for the promises made in respect of their storm overflows discharge reduction funds.

Draft REACH (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 General Committees

[The Chair]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Hon. Members may remove their jackets, if they are brave enough to do so.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft REACH (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026.

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and I welcome all hon. Members to the Committee. The draft regulations were laid before this House on 24 March. I will go through them in detail, but in short, all they will do is move six dates to enable us to finish the alternative transitional registration model; amend UK REACH, which is a central part of the framework governing the safe use of chemicals in Great Britain; and amend the dates by which businesses must submit information to the Health and Safety Executive on chemicals that they manufacture and place on the market.

UK REACH retains the core principles of the EU system, including its fundamental aim of ensuring a high level of protection for human health and the environment. I want to be clear from the outset that nothing in these draft regulations will change its aims or reduce its protections; they will just move six dates and make two key changes.

The first change will extend the deadline from article 127P by which registrants—that is, manufacturers and importers—must submit information on their chemicals to the HSE. Our EU exit transitional arrangements were put in place to support a smooth and orderly move to the UK regime, including later deadlines to submit complete registration data. Under the current system, the deadlines fall on 27 October 2026, 27 October 2028 and 27 October 2030. The most hazardous and highest-tonnage substances come first. The draft regulations will extend those deadlines to 27 October 2029, 27 October 2030 and 27 October 2031 respectively. These provisions apply to all substances that were already on the EU market at the time of EU exit.

I recognise that these deadlines have previously been extended, so let me address directly why we need to extend them further. In 2023, the then Government extended the deadlines because of transitional challenges, especially the considerable cost to the industry of acquiring the information required, usually from former EU partners. This allowed for the exploration of an alternative transitional registration model. The aim was a fair and workable system for all stakeholders. Since the election, this Government have reassessed our broader chemicals policy while we have completed exploration of the ATRm. This reflects our improved relationship with the European Union, but clearly the ATRm cannot be implemented in time for the first transitional registration deadline of 27 October 2026. As a result, it is necessary to extend the deadlines once more to ensure a robust and effective policy framework. This extension will avoid imposing significant and unnecessary costs on industry while we complete the development of a more proportionate and effective transitional model.

Following a consultation in 2024, we published our approach to the ATRm on 30 March 2026, providing long-awaited clarity for industry. It will reduce the data that businesses must submit for UK REACH registration. The ATRm aims to cut by about 70% the one-off industry costs of transitional registration, but it also maintains the important protections that UK REACH provides. It recognises that companies that place chemicals on the GB market are responsible for managing the risks to human health and the environment, including harmful effects arising from their hazardous properties or how they are used in this country. Registration therefore remains key to ensuring that businesses understand and properly manage those risks in Great Britain.

The extension of the deadline is to give us the extra time needed to finalise and implement the ATRm in a proportionate and workable way in the GB market. It will also give businesses the certainty that they need to plan for compliance, and will maintain continuity in important supply chains.

We are acting decisively by bringing forward ATRm legislation so that the industry knows what it needs to do in good time for the new deadlines. Without the extension, businesses would have to meet the existing deadlines and submit the full registration requirements currently in UK REACH. The industry would face the full estimated £2 billion costs, when we have made clear this Government’s intention to remove them. I believe that that would be as unacceptable to this Committee as it is to the Government.

The second change in the draft regulations is to the deadlines by which HSE must complete compliance checks on 20% of registration dossiers. The compliance check deadlines will thereby remain aligned with the revised registration submission deadlines; otherwise, HSE will have to complete checks before the relevant data is even submitted. Under the draft regulations, the deadlines for compliance checks will move to 27 October 2030, 27 October 2032 and 27 October 2036—I should have asked why 27 October, shouldn’t I? That will remain a mystery, but the time between the registration deadline and the related compliance checks deadline will remain unchanged.

As with the previous amendment to UK REACH, made using a power in the Environment Act 2021, we have followed the safeguards set out in schedule 21 to that Act. We have worked closely with the devolved Governments in Scotland and Wales, who have given their consent for this instrument. We have consulted publicly to ensure that stakeholders have had the opportunity to provide views and evidence.

We have published a statement confirming that the amendments are consistent with the overarching aims of UK REACH. We have also published an impact assessment, which demonstrates that extending the deadline will reduce unnecessary costs to businesses while maintaining an effective regulatory framework; it builds on the options assessment published in March 2026, which the Regulatory Policy Committee rated as fit for purpose.

The territorial extent of the draft regulations is the United Kingdom. The devolved Governments are engaged in their development and are content. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has formally considered them without comment.

The draft regulations will ensure that UK REACH continues to operate effectively during the transition to a more proportionate registration model. They will maintain high standards of protection for human health and the environment while giving industry the time and certainty to comply in a way that avoids unnecessary cost and disruption.

[The Chair]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I thank all Committee members for their support and their contributions. UK REACH is a complex but important framework that underpins how we regulate chemicals to protect human health and the environment while supporting industry and trade.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire made an important point about the chemicals industry. Recent events have highlighted the importance of the chemicals industry and how essential it is to everything in the United Kingdom, including water. That is why I was so keen to work with the industry to make things as easy for them as possible.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the situation that he describes is an inevitable result of leaving the EU in the way we did. My constituency also voted to leave, but at none of the doors that I knocked on did anyone say that that was because they did not like the transitional arrangement for chemicals regulation, either, although maybe somebody somewhere did. Under UK REACH, recovered substances do not need to be registered if they meet certain conditions, one of which is that recovery must take place within the EU, so my hon. Friend is completely right.

Let me quickly set out where we are trying to go. We have published a document on the new approach to ensure that regulators and regulation support the growth action plan, and in the environment improvement plan we want to make greater use of regulatory decisions made by like-minded jurisdictions, particularly the EU. To support that, we are looking to reform UK REACH so that we can apply protections that address chemical pollution more quickly and efficiently and in a way that is more aligned with our closest trading partners, especially the EU, by December 2028. We will take regulatory decisions in accordance with that reform unless there is a compelling reason to diverge—and it would have to be compelling. We will assess and, where appropriate, add substances to the authorisation list and will update the candidate list. Drawing from regulatory decision making in other jurisdictions does not change the importance of registration by GB companies, but it is a sensible way to conduct trade with our nearest and closest neighbours.

In response to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, we are committed to closer alignment with EU REACH and we will ensure that divergence occurs only when it is compelling. We are currently defining the specific circumstances under which exemptions from EU alignment may be considered for UK REACH. We will publicly consult on those proposals, so I urge everybody to submit their thoughts.

The changes that we are introducing under the draft regulations are simply an amendment to the deadlines to enable that work and that public consultation to take place. They will not reduce our high levels of protection for human health, but they will make things easier for businesses. I thank everyone for their support, and I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

6. What steps she is taking to help improve water quality.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

The Government are serious about holding water companies to account and maintaining high drinking water standards. Just this week, South West Water has rightly been fined £1.85 million—a record fine for a drinking water offence—for failures that led to a cryptosporidium outbreak in the Brixham area of Devon. We will keep taking action so that communities can have safe, clean and reliable drinking water.

[Dr Chambers]

The Government’s own Veterinary Medicines Directorate is really concerned that pet flea treatments sold in supermarkets are washing pesticides into Britain’s lakes, waterways and chalk streams and killing aquatic life. Those treatments include ingredients such as fipronil and imidacloprid, which is banned from agricultural use to protect bees. Millions of pets are blanket-treated every month, whether they need it or not, and we already require professional advice before selling similar products to treat parasites in farm animals. Will the Minister commit to reclassifying these products so that they can no longer be sold off a supermarket shelf without professional advice? A chemical that is too dangerous for use in agriculture probably should not be available over a counter.

[Emma Hardy]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s expertise in this area. This is a serious issue; a scientific group is looking at it and will give advice to Ministers on what is the best course of action to take.

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

I recently joined Surfers Against Sewage on the River Ouse, where the consequences of the failure of Yorkshire Water were plain to see. Does the Minister agree that we should compel water bosses to personally clean up excessive pollution and that they should be sent into the river with some overalls and a pair of wellies to have the opportunity to get reacquainted with their products?

[Emma Hardy]

It would be difficult to identify whose product it was in the water, but I am sure that is not quite what my hon. Friend meant. I wholeheartedly agree with him on the issue of making water bosses clean up the mess that has been created. That is why we passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which introduced tough accountability measures that sadly have been lacking for the last decade.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

7. Whether she has made an assessment of the potential merits of improving the transparency of food welfare labelling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

10. What steps she is taking to help clean waterways in the Thames Valley.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

We are taking decisive action to clean up waterways in the Thames valley, tackling pollution from water companies, agriculture and urban run-off. The Environment Agency carried out more than 800 inspections of Thames Water assets this year, holding water companies to account and improving water quality for local communities.

[Peter Swallow]

Last week there was a major fire in Bracknell, and I pay tribute to the emergency services, Bracknell Forest council, local businesses and the community, which all came together to respond. Alongside the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), I have since contacted the Environment Agency to raise residents’ concerns about the environmental impact of the fire, including on Bracknell’s waterways, and I thank the EA for its ongoing work to mitigate the impact. What policies are in place to support nature and waterway recovery following such incidents?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important issue to the House, and I join him in paying tribute to the Environment Agency, all the emergency responders and everybody who has been working so hard. Public health advice has been issued, including precautionary guidance to avoid contact with potentially contaminated material. The incident is under investigation to assess regulatory compliance and to determine whether enforcement action is required, and I am happy to meet him to see whether it has been dealt with to his satisfaction and whether there is any more help I can give him.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

One of the sources of contamination that the Minister did not mention is human waste being discharged over the side from slum boats on EA land. The EA claims that its statutory obligation is only to register boats on its land when an application is received, and that it is discretionary. It basically does not police slum boats on its land. Will the Minister have a look at this issue and discuss it with the Environment Agency, so that slum boats on EA land can either be registered properly and policed, or moved on?

[Emma Hardy]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point; I would be happy to look at it with the Environment Agency.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

11. When she last met the National Farmers’ Union of Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

In Dewsbury and Batley, Yorkshire Water has dumped sewage for more than 1,597 hours so far this year, exceeding the confirmed total sewage pollution for 2025. Yet the Environment Agency has not completed any prosecutions against water companies for sewage dumping committed in the past five years. What exactly in this system constitutes effective enforcement and accountability, and what are this Government doing right now to strengthen it?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

The answer is a huge amount. The EA has carried out over 10,000 inspections of water company sites in 2025-26, compared with the 4,000 before Labour came to power, and we have provided a record £189 million to fund hundreds of enforcement officers, because this Government are actually taking action on this issue.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

T6.  Cleaning up perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or forever chemicals, costs water companies and bill payers huge amounts every year. Does the Minister agree that polluters should foot the bill for remediation, and can the “polluter pays” principle be included in the clean water Bill?

[Emma Hardy]

I am really proud that our country has world-leading drinking water quality—in fact, our PFAS standard of 0.1 micrograms per litre is among the tightest in the whole world. I completely accept the “polluter pays” principle, although that is quite challenging for PFAS, because much of it is historical contamination. We are now working through that to make the principle work effectively in practice, while acknowledging that it is sometimes very difficult to identify the original source of PFAS.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Agriculture offers enormous growth opportunities in the UK, and when it comes to precision breeding and plant protection, it is vital that the SPS deal maintains the UK’s right to diverge on the basis of its own scientific assessments, particularly in those sectors. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give such growth sectors in agriculture that that autonomy will be retained in any future deal?

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Following the brilliant news that the River Thames at Ham and Kingston is to be designated as a bathing water area, does the Secretary of State think that Thames Water’s proposals to pump treated sewage into the river just a few metres further downstream at Teddington are compatible?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for her excitement at having the first ever bathing water designation in the city of London. There will obviously be extremely high standards when it comes to any waste water that comes from any treatment plant. One thing we are doing through the White Paper—in fact, I met Sir Chris Whitty yesterday—is to look really seriously at public health and waste water, and what we can do to ensure the highest possible standards so that it is safe for people to enjoy all designated bathing areas.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Some 80% of the world’s cut daffodils come from Cornwall. The horticultural industry is totally reliant on the seasonal worker scheme, but the numbers for that are only announced annually at the end of the year, whereas the daffodil harvest begins in Cornwall in January. Can Ministers help me to lobby the Home Office for a rolling two-year scheme announced no later than October each year?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Does the Minister want to respond?

[Emma Hardy]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. May I take this opportunity to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for the lack of response? I will follow it up immediately with the Department. I am happy to meet him personally and will ensure that this happens within the next couple of weeks. I am sorry for the lack of response, which is not acceptable. We will make changes to put it right.

[Mr Speaker]

That completes questions to the Secretary of State.

Before we come to questions to the Solicitor General, I note that the Fordingbridge rape cases have been referred to the Court of Appeal. The matter is therefore sub judice. I am granting a limited waiver so that the case can be discussed, but Members should not speculate about sentencing issues, and they should not criticise judges, except on a substantive motion.

South East Water: Disruption of Supply

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): Will the Secretary of State for the Environment make a statement following the disruption of water supplies throughout the area served by South East Water during the spring recess?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for asking this question. I will update the House on the water supply disruption in Kent, and I want to begin by expressing my sympathy for those affected by the disruption. Being without water is distressing at any time, but particularly during a period of hot weather, alongside school revision and examinations. This is now the third major outage affecting South East Water customers in recent months, and it is simply not acceptable.

South East Water reported that thousands of customers were impacted by supply disruptions over the course of the incident, and I am pleased that normal water supply has now been restored. I met the interim chair and senior operational staff twice during the course of the incident, including on Sunday, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs team met them daily to hold them to account for the incident and to request that they set out by the end of this week how they will compensate customers.

Water supply disruption causes significant cost to businesses and impacts the most vulnerable in society. I have heard of a 100-year-old lady without water, and a care home in Cranbrook using wet wipes to keep their residents clean. This is simply unacceptable, and the company must take urgent action.

I thank all those working in the Kent local resilience forum, the local authorities, the health and social care partners, and civil servants in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and DEFRA for their hard work to support those affected. I am also grateful to operational staff and volunteers who worked on the ground to restore supplies and provide alternative water.

A reliable supply of clean water is one of the foundations of a healthy, functioning society. The situation demands further bold action to deliver fundamental long-term reform, and that is why we are delivering whole-scale reform to the water sector. Through our clean water Bill, we will create a new single, powerful regulator, giving us for the first time a clear system-wide view of company performance and the tools to intervene more quickly when companies fall short. We will put consumers first by introducing a water ombudsman, ensuring that customers have a stronger voice and clearer routes to redress. We have already passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which introduced the toughest sentencing powers ever applied to lawbreaking water company executives, and introduced powers to ban unjustified bonuses.

It is vital that South East Water and all water companies deliver on improvements to their infrastructure, but most of all, they must continue to improve their ability to maintain water supplies to their customers, whatever the weather.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I thank the Minister for her obvious and genuine concern, and for the measures that she has sought to take. I join her in thanking the very many organisations that have sought to help us through this problem, and I include in that the employees on the ground at South East Water.

Mr Speaker, you know that thousands of people in Herne Bay in my constituency and thousands more in Whitstable, in the constituency represented by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), were left without water during the four hottest days of the year so far. That is totally inexcusable and totally unacceptable. Not only were households disrupted, but at the very time when they should have been having a glorious start to their season, guest houses, hotels, restaurants and pubs were shut, care homes had frightful problems, and a doctor’s surgery lost consultations, because they did not have water.

There is no quick fix. The Broad Oak reservoir should have been built 50 years ago. It will take 10 years if we start tomorrow, but we have to try to make sure that in the coming months, because there will be more hot weather, this does not happen for a fifth time across Kent.

Finally, I do believe that the water companies face a very real problem in the regulations as they stand. They are required by law to connect every new house to a supply, but they are not consultees in planning applications—we have to correct that. They have to be given a voice because they cannot spirit water out of thin air.

[Emma Hardy]

I share the right hon. Gentleman’s outrage at the situation. He is quite right to say that one of the answers is the reservoir, which will take a long time to build, but this is not just about the reservoir. It is also about desalination plants, and the need for more urgent action to tackle leakage; too much water is lost through leakage. Across Government, we are looking at building standards for new homes and at how we can make homes more water-efficient, because this is a big problem. I hope that I can offer the right hon. Gentleman some reassurance by telling him that the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority has been doing some mapping to identify areas of the country that have more acute water shortage problems and what we need to resolve them.

I asked the company, “What are the actions you can take now?” There is no excuse for poor communication; that is something it can fix overnight. It can also improve its relationship with the local resilience forum. That does not cost any money. It can look at its bulk supply deal with Southern Water—that is another action it can take. It can accelerate its work on leakage reduction—that is another action it can take. Fundamentally, though, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right: the answer is building reservoirs and having greater water storage across our country. Quite frankly, I think it is that we have a situation where we complain about the drought all through the summer and complain about the rain all through the winter, yet have no way of storing that water. I am urgently trying to change that.

[Mr Speaker]

I remind everybody that this urgent question is about South East Water, not other water companies. I am sure that all questions will be linked to that subject.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

Like many of my constituents, I have lost all faith in South East Water after its repeated failures to deliver adequate standards for customers in my constituency and across Kent. The latest incident left around 4,000 of my constituents having to cope for days with no water entirely, an intermittent supply or low water pressure. South East Water’s failure to invest in infrastructure means that I have no confidence that it will be able to provide a basic standard of service. Moreover, it kept in place the hosepipe ban until February, and there was no preparedness for the coming hot weather, so there is a lack of understanding by the senior leadership within that organisation. What practical measures can the Government take to ensure that we will not suffer in the coming summer months?

[Emma Hardy]

I share my hon. Friend’s outrage at the situation. He has been a fantastic champion for his constituents in raising this matter with me a number of times. On the immediate action that South East Water can take, we have said to the company that it needs to be prepared for future hot weather during the summer. What is its resilience plan, what actions will it take and where can it identify immediate actions to take? The longer-term solution is greater water storage. Fundamentally, this company is a water-only company. It has one job—that is all—and that job is to supply water, and it is, quite frankly, astonishing that it is failing to do that at the moment.

My hon. Friend will be aware that South East Water is under investigation by Ofwat and the Drinking Water Inspectorate as to whether, because of its recent credit downgrade, its licence conditions have been broken—so serious actions are being taken against the company. I will, of course, update the House as soon as I hear more about the actions it will be taking in the immediate short term. I should also say that the CEO has offered his resignation and the chair has already resigned. There is an interim chair, and the CEO is currently there while the organisation looks to replace him.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale). I thank the Minister for her approach and engagement on this vital issue.

It is deeply regrettable that we are here yet again with unacceptable outages from South East Water following the events back in December and January. The shortage of water supply in Kent in these hot conditions has had a terrible impact on local communities: homes have been without water supply; schools and businesses have been impacted; farmers and horse owners, again, feared not having enough water for their livestock; and local residents have lost confidence in their water supply and are switching to bottled water. That is simply outrageous.

These repeated failures from South East Water are simply not good enough. We have heard repeated accounts about poor communication and logistics from South East Water, including difficulties in accessibility to collect bottled water, compromising vulnerable residents. Can the Minister please provide guidance on what is being done to ensure that, moving forward, people can reliably access adequate supply, particularly vulnerable households? What is being done to ensure that vital healthcare delivery can continue uninterrupted? In these hot conditions, what measures can be put in place so that farmers and horse owners have enough water for their livestock? What meetings has the Minister had with South East Water, Ofwat, the Drinking Water Inspectorate, local resilience fora and affected councils since this latest disruption?

We have seen resignations at the top of South East Water, but we are yet to see any change in performance. What enforcement action is being considered against South East Water if it is found again to have failed its statutory duties? What investment has South East Water committed to improve resilience in Kent, Sussex and other areas, and how will Ministers ensure that it is delivered? Do the Government accept that repeated water outages are unacceptable, and what steps will Ministers take to support people in South East Water’s area so that they do not face yet another period of interrupted supply?

[Emma Hardy]

Access to water for livestock was raised with me after the last outage—I think by the hon. Member and the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies). This time, South East Water did make deliveries of alternative water to farms across the region during the incident—or that is what I have been informed, but if there is intelligence otherwise, I am keen to learn about that and to understand. South East Water has said that it continues to monitor farms in at-risk areas.

The issue of vulnerable customers continues to be a challenge. I have been talking to the Cabinet Office about whether there are ways to share more accurate information and data. The water companies say that it is challenging to keep a priority register up to date because people sometimes fall in and out of being classified as “vulnerable”. For example, a lady who is pregnant is classified as being vulnerable and needing water, but after she has had the baby, she is no longer classified as vulnerable in the same way. We need to ensure that we can maintain accurate records of who is vulnerable and in need of additional water, so I am having conversations with the Cabinet Office about whether there are ways of sharing data, while bearing in mind the sensitivities and complications of sharing information. I ask all colleagues to encourage their constituents to self-identify through the priority services register if they are classified as “vulnerable”, so that they can access water as they expect.

I met the interim chair of South East Water, and we had a productive conversation. She is keen to reset relationships, and she wants to meet MPs who represent constituencies in the area and talk to them. She is committed to rebuilding the relationship with the local resilience forum and looking at how the company can improve communications. To be fair to her, she has been in post for only a few weeks, so this incident has happened very early in her interim chairship, but there are things that we can work on and build on. There are things that the company can do now around communications and I am concerned by what the hon. Gentleman says about accessibility problems at drinking-water stations.

The hon. Gentleman asked about who I have met. I have met the new interim chair and the senior people involved. I regularly meet the Drinking Water Inspectorate and Ofwat. There are currently live investigations into the company following the last incident and those will continue.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the way that she has approached this incident, particularly for pointing out that South East Water has one job. Unfortunately, the company is accountable to its shareholders more than to the people who it is supposed to serve. Notwithstanding the reforms to the water industry that the Government have already put in place, may I make a suggestion for the future? Rather than simply fining these companies when they fail so catastrophically, we should take stocks in the company to the value of the amount of the fine to be held by a locally convened water board, so that residents have some form of control and accountability for the decisions that are made. Otherwise, we are relying on extractive capitalism and that will destroy our water supply.

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. As the White Paper set out:

“Where a water company might want to transition to a new ownership model, such as a not-for-profit, the regulator will develop a transparent process to assess whether a water company’s requested move to a new model should go ahead”.

We are looking at developing a transparent process, if that is something that the water company might want to consider.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about increasing the customer voice. On day one when this Government came to power we announced new consumer boards for water companies. The Consumer Council for Water has covered the entire country, gathering together different people for customer panels. It has already held a customer panel in the South East Water area, so that customers can hold water company bosses to account—it works very much like a Select Committee hearing. I will share the report from that panel with the House. It is interesting that the No. 1 issue that came up for the water company to tackle was the lack of adequate communication. That does not require millions or billions of pounds spent on a reservoir—it just requires competence.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Leaving thousands of South East Water customers without access to drinking water has become a pattern of neglect, enabled by a water system that fails to hold water companies accountable for their actions. Whether it is environmental disruption or consistent water disruption, this situation is simply unacceptable, but the Government’s timid reforms do not rise to the scale of the challenge. We do not need more tinkering—we need a total structural overhaul. Given the repeated failures in water supply and sewage pollution in the South East Water area and across the country, will the Minister back Liberal Democrat proposals for a mutually owned public benefit model for water companies, focusing investment on the environment, customers and infrastructure, rather than on lining the pockets of the bosses of water companies such as South East Water?

[Emma Hardy]

South East Water is a water only company, not a sewage company, so we can criticise it for many things, but sewage pollution is not one of them. When the Government came to power we introduced customer panels on day one, and since then we have secured £104 billion of private investment, passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 and given the Environment Agency more powers to monitor water companies and uncover wrongdoing. In fact, the EA has done more than 10,000 inspections of water companies and uncovered 81 examples that have gone on to criminal investigations. I gently point out to the hon. Lady that under the coalition Government funding for the EA was cut by more than a half.

We have also introduced criminal liability for water companies, introduced automatic penalties, reduced the burden of proof, introduced cost recovery, banned the sale and supply of wet wipes, looked at reforming our bathing waters, established the water delivery taskforce and have abolished Ofwat. Yes, there is more work to do on top of that, but I stand proud on the record of the actions that we have already taken following years of inaction.

[Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) for securing the urgent question. The disruption caused by this incident has been extremely distressing for my constituents on the Sussex-Kent border who are served by South East Water. Many residents and businesses were impacted, and it is right that the chief executive and the chairman of South East Water have resigned. I urge the Government to look at the terms of the company’s licence and whether they have been breached.

We are here in the Chamber again discussing another major water outage—as the Minister knows, there have been two major outages in my patch—and we see the same mistakes and failures repeated time and again by the water companies. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee looked at the issue and found that the water companies need to have clear plans of action in place, including for providing water stations in the right places, such as those that people can get to without a car, and they need to think about the impact on businesses and maybe deliver water to them to keep them open. All of those things are forgotten every time, so will the Minister instruct all water companies in the country to have detailed emergency response plans in place for every constituency in the country and ask that they work with local MPs on them? We are the people who can get the contact details for the local headteachers and vicars, as I had to last Christmas eve, who can set up water stations, but the water companies need to do the planning before disaster strikes and people lose water. I urge the Minister to look at such measures.

[Emma Hardy]

South East Water has broken its licence conditions, and it is currently in breach of its licence. It has been downgraded by Moody’s credit rating agency because of its performance—I think it is the first time that a credit rating agency has downgraded a water company over performance rather than insolvency. Its licence is also being investigated by Ofwat under the consumer duty because of the supply outages in December and January.

My hon. Friend asked about emergency response plans. Water companies should absolutely have emergency response plans, but clearly the plans that South East Water has are inadequate. That is why we want to work with the local resilience forum, the water company and officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that those plans are improved before we have another short spell of hot weather.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) asked a good question that the Minister touched on, but I want to press her further. Parts of Mereworth, Platt and Offham in my area were left not only without water, but without the support necessary for those who were most vulnerable, until two fantastic councillors, Matt Boughton and Sarah Hudson, both from East Peckham, really went in there and got into the fight with the water company to ensure that the water station was set up. What planning can the Minister help with to ensure that infrastructure is put in place? The water companies have got away with it for far too long. Let us not beat around the bush: South East Water has been the worst run company that I have ever come across and it is quite right that the leadership has gone. By the way, I have come across quite a lot of companies, so that bar is set quite high. The Minister has extraordinary discretionary authority to corral and coerce companies to act, so will she look at bringing forward a task group within regional areas to ensure that emergency water plans are in place? Otherwise this situation will happen again,

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful question. The water companies have a statutory duty to provide wholesome water. In the event that they cannot do that, they must include provisions of alternative water supplies, as set out in the Security and Emergency Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers and Water Supply Licensees) Direction 2022, so they have that statutory duty to plan and prepare.

The right hon. Gentleman’s suggestion is a helpful one, and I would want South East Water to work with the LRF on this issue. In this case, it was just a water supply issue, but often when we have incidents that take out water supply—such as flooding, potentially—there is more than one issue, so it is important that companies work really closely with local resilience forums. I can commit to contacting the company and the local resilience forum to ensure they have those plans in place, and also recommend that they speak to the local Members of Parliament about those plans, to ensure that they are felt to be satisfactory.

[Tom Tugendhat]

And the councillors.

[Emma Hardy]

And the councillors, of course, through the local resilience forum; they need to make sure they are ready for what may be another hot summer.

[Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)]

Constituents of mine have been really worried and concerned by seeing residents of Herne Bay and Whitstable along the coast deprived of their essential water supplies. It should not have come as a shock; we know that there was 15% extra usage of water during the heatwave the other week, but local farmers were telling me in March and April that water supplies in the swales on Sheppey were really low. We have more investment coming, but it is really chalk and cheese in my area and in Swale, where we have Southern Water and South East Water. South East Water is absolutely dreadful, whereas on Sheppey—which is particularly vulnerable to water supply issues—we have a new water main coming, £4 million-worth of investment, and a massive new drainage system. The difference between those two companies is obvious, so will the Minister tell me how we cannot just increase the amount of investment going into the water system, but deliver it at pace, and how we can end the postcode lottery of whether people get water or do not just because of the management of these firms?

[Emma Hardy]

On the issue of farmers and water supply, I am keen to make it much easier for farmers to set up on-farm reservoirs. I have heard repeatedly from farmers that they find that difficult, so I want to make it as simple as possible. I have spoken to too many farmers who tell me about their frustrations, particularly in the Suffolk area; they say, “All winter, we send all the water out into the sea, and then all summer, we wish we had it back.” I want to do something about that.

Every single water company has been told to produce a drought emergency plan ready for the summer, to make sure we are prepared. As for making sure the companies deliver what they promise, one of the things we did through the Water (Special Measures) Act was ensure that if they do not deliver what they promise, the money they have taken to deliver it must be refunded to customers. That money has been ringfenced, and the Water Delivery Taskforce tracks all of the major projects to make sure they are on track and on budget. If they are not, we as a Government intervene to understand why, and to assess what can be done to bring those projects back on track.

My hon. Friend is quite right that someone who lives in a certain area should not suffer a much poorer service than they would receive if they lived somewhere else. That is why we want to get a better grip on the delivery of projects, and also make it easier for people to hold on to water during the winter, to make sure they have it during the summer.

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)]

I thank the Minister, who has been engaged on this issue for a long time—she talks to me and my neighbours, and I know she really cares. My neighbours and I spend far too much of our time talking about the latest water shortages. Heat seems to equate to a lack of water in the taps. Whitstable has been devastated yet again, and we are really worried about too many new houses whose demand for water will not be met, as well as about local businesses in the summer. The excellent Nomad Pizza, an independent company, had to close for days during a peak time for tourism. By the way, lots of my constituents are very behind the nationalisation model; I get a lot of emails about that. With our reservoir 10 years away from being built, how can I assure my constituents that the tanks will not still be empty in July and August? If they are, businesses will suffer.

[Emma Hardy]

That pizza business sounds great, and definitely worth a visit in summer. The hon. Lady is right; when I spoke to South East Water again on Sunday evening, I asked, “What immediate measures can you put in place over this summer to make sure we have enough water supply?”

I have had some really productive conversations with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about how we build homes that use less water—what we can do through building standards to build homes in a different way, so that they do not have to use the same amount of water. That happens all over the world; it is not beyond our grasp as a Government to do.

Fundamentally, we are going to need to build the reservoirs. We are going to need the desalination plants and those big sources of water, but as I have mentioned before, one of the more immediate things that South East Water could do is tackle the leaks. At the moment, too much water is going into the ground and being wasted.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

Residents in Dartford, like those across Kent, are experiencing poor service and increased bills—including residents in Ebbsfleet, who have to pay an additional sum for waste water to flow from their community into the Thames. That is charged for by the Port of London Authority; it is called dewatering, and it is incredibly unfair to those residents. They ask me continually why it is acceptable for this poor performance to occur and for water executives to continue to pay themselves large bonuses. What work is going on to tighten the regulations so that reward matches performance?

[Emma Hardy]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. As I have mentioned before, I do not have an issue with bonuses per se; I just think they should be linked to how well people do their jobs. We have banned unfair bonuses through the Water (Special Measures) Act, but some companies have attempted to exploit loopholes so that they can continue to award them. We are determined to close those loopholes.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

We have had a few days of hot weather, and yet again we have had water outages in my constituency and across Kent, on top of what we saw earlier this year and last year. Residents, businesses and livestock owners are frustrated, but they are also really worried, because getting water is the most basic thing in this country. It is right that the chief executive and chair of South East Water have gone; my anger with them was particularly about their response and how they have handled these outages. However, there is a longer-term problem with water infrastructure and supply that will not be fixed overnight. In my constituency, 20,000 more houses are in the pipeline for the next few years, and thousands more in the surrounding area. Is there enough water for those thousands of additional houses in rural Kent?

[Emma Hardy]

The hon. Lady raises an important point—I remember how powerfully she described the impact on her constituents and businesses when we were last in the Chamber talking about South East Water, so I know this is something she cares deeply about. As I have said, one of the things we are doing through the Water Delivery Taskforce is identifying areas of the country where there are more acute water shortages, and therefore what actions can be taken to ensure that people have the homes to live in that they need, and businesses have the water they need, without having a detrimental impact on the residents who already live in those areas.

South East Water, in particular, is reliant on a bulk supply agreement with Southern Water. That is one of the things I am keen to look into the details of, to make sure that that can be guaranteed, whatever circumstances Southern Water finds itself in. There are various other actions we can take; I have mentioned businesses, building standards and the way we build homes. In Cambridge, they have looked at retrofitting some homes to make them use less water.

There are various other rules and regulations on businesses’ use of water—at the moment, we have a slightly bizarre situation where businesses have to use potable water. They are not able to use other types of water, and it seems a bit crazy that we are wasting drinking water on things that are not drinking or for domestic customers. We are looking at a whole spread of different actions to make sure that we have the water we need; the nine new reservoirs, the desalination plants and all those things are brilliant, but they are not going to be in place this summer or next summer, so we are looking at what more immediate actions we can take.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

Absolutely, Mr Speaker: my question is about South East Water, because what we have here is a company that fell over at the first short period of hot weather. We have to wonder what planning has gone on in that company, given that it fell over so quickly in the season. When are we going to call time on these water companies? The consistent failure that we see from them, while they extract enormous profits from the industry, has to come to an end at some stage. I know that my hon. Friend is as frustrated with these water companies as the rest of us, but there must come a time when we say to them, “Enough is enough”, and take control of them for the public good.

[Emma Hardy]

As I have highlighted, the White Paper talks about companies that wish to move to alternative ownership models, but I will briefly touch on special administration for breaching statutory duties. Under section 37 of the Water Industry Act 1991, a water company has a duty to supply water within its area of appointment. A serious breach of these principal duties or of an enforcement order can be grounds for a performance special administration regime, if that breach is so serious that it is no longer appropriate for the company to continue to hold its instrument of appointment.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I absolutely despair of South East Water. As we have heard from Members who represent Kent constituencies, South East Water cannot cope with large water outages; but nor can it cope with small water outages. In my constituency, the village of Staplefield has just gone through 30 hours without water, without bottled water being supplied and without good information—indeed, there was even some misinformation. I understand that trying to fix decades of neglect of water infrastructure will take a long time, but in the Minister’s next meetings with executives at South East Water, will she ask to look at their communication plans so that people can know what is happening, get timely information and get the bottled water they need, since outages seem to be par for the course these days?

[Emma Hardy]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. One of the issues that we discussed in the conversation on Sunday was communication, including about where to put bottled water stations. I was told that during this incident, South East Water had worked more closely with the local resilience forum to listen to its advice about where to place those stations. If that is not her experience, I would be keen to hear about that, so that I can take that back to the company. South East Water has an interim chair, who I know is keen to build new relationships with Members of Parliament—she has assured me that she will be meeting MPs. I urge Members collectively to raise this issue of communication and where bottled water stations are directly with the interim chair, so that we can have them in the right place. Fundamentally, Members of Parliament and councillors probably know and understand their areas far better than a water company does.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) for securing this urgent question, and I thank the Minister for her approach to this difficult and appalling issue in Kent. Can she update the House a little bit more on the work to get meaningful compensation for the affected residents and businesses? In the longer term, what is she doing to improve the system of compensation? Many of my residents who had a water outage had to wait a long time for money to be paid back.

[Emma Hardy]

One of the first things we did when we came into government was to look at the guaranteed standards scheme. We have introduced increased compensation payments and new standards. Previously, compensation was not being paid when people were under a boil notice, but this Government have introduced that, along with doubling compensation for failings such as supply interruptions, low pressure and sewer flooding. Because of those changes, customers should for the first time be receiving payments for boil notices. We have told water companies to make compensation available to people as soon as possible. We are clear that customers come first. They are the people I care about, and they are the people for whom I am the Water Minister. We will also look at introducing a water ombudsman. In the conversation I had with South East Water on Sunday, I asked it to identify by the end of the week what compensation will be paid to who, and when, and I will be following up on that.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

As the Minister is looking into the situation with South East Water, can I also feed back what happened last week, when parts of Weybridge had restrictions on water supply? Although we are supplied by Affinity Water, I think the problem is broader than just our area. Will she urgently review the resilience and availability of water supply, and in particular the impact that new house building will have on supply over the coming years?

[Emma Hardy]

On resilience, one of the things that we want to introduce for the first time is asset standards for water company assets. At the moment, those do not exist; there is no rule or criterion for the standard to which water companies need to maintain their water treatment work, waste water treatment work or pipes, or for how much leakage is acceptable. With the new regulator, we want to introduce those asset standards, which say that companies have to maintain their assets to a certain standard. That should help change things and basically build against what we have seen—admittedly not on this occasion; on this occasion, the company ran out of water—in other cases where infrastructure falls over because it is not adequately maintained and looked after.

That is why the no-notice inspections matter; with those MOT-style inspections, as I refer to them, people from the Environment Agency can go in with no notice, check the assets, mark the water company on them and then give it an enforcement notice to say that it has to improve its assets up to a certain standard. The situation will not be fixed overnight, but having that goal for where we need to get to will help to prevent infrastructure from falling over because it is not properly looked after.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

South East Water is one of a number of privatised water companies that are responsible for selling off 35 reservoirs since 2017, and those companies have not built a single one since privatisation that is complete. We understand that this Government are committed to a regulatory approach to dealing with this issue, but that is akin to putting a complaints box on the Titanic. It is a nice idea, but I do not think it will work. Ultimately, private water companies’ first priority is private shareholders—many of them overseas—who do not give a damn about our constituents. This situation will keep happening until water is put back under public control, in public hands, and owned by the public.

[Emma Hardy]

I know how passionately my hon. Friend cares about this issue, and I genuinely pay tribute to him for championing this issue and for the work he has done in Parliament to bring people together. As I have mentioned, the White Paper talks about setting up a transparent process to look at whether a company should transition to a different model, including a not-for-profit, if that was what it wished to do.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Mr Speaker, as an Essex MP, may I endorse your lovely tribute at PMQs to Sir Alan Haselhurst? He will be much missed, even though he did achieve a respectable innings of 88 years in his time on this earth.

I strongly endorse the suggestion of my right hon. Friend from across the Thames, the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), about making water companies statutory consultees for planning applications. When there is an application for a large number of houses, the implications can be severe not just for fresh water, but for foul water and in particular for sewage. In my constituency, our sewage capacity is very nearly maxed out, and the implications of getting that wrong are frighteningly obvious. I can see that the Minister is helpfully nodding. Can we please change the law to make water companies statutory consultees, so that they can give expert advice on whether new planning proposals are feasible in reality?

[Emma Hardy]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to point out the consequences of getting it wrong. Just to reassure him, we are looking at using tools such as the water delivery taskforce where we have shortages, to see what we can do. That is for not just water, but waste water capacity too, because both are crucial. We want to see homes being built—people want somewhere to live, and first-time buyers in particular are finding it incredibly difficult—but we are taking a sensible approach. We are identifying where we have shortages in waste water or water to see what we can do to address the amount available, as well as what can be done to reduce demand in that area, including retrofitting, building standards and various other measures.

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has extensively investigated South East Water; what I found particularly shocking was the fact that so many warnings and concerns were raised but were simply ignored. Despite a high risk of water supply failure, the lack of preparedness was plain to see. Will the regulatory reforms that the Government are looking at have real consequences when those concerns are raised, but are ignored by the water companies?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend and all members of the EFRA Committee for their excellent report, which was forensic in looking into the failures of South East Water. It was a brilliant, useful document. He is right that tough consequences are needed if concerns are raised and ignored; that cannot be allowed to continue to happen. That is exactly why we want to create a new regulator with strong powers and teeth to be able to take action. It is also why we are looking at introducing this performance improvement regime for water companies so that, if we identify failure in a water company, the regulator has proper oversight to turn that company around and make it improve, with consequences if it does not.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her praise of the EFRA Committee’s report. I speak as a member of that Committee; we are doing extensive work on the water industry and we are following this matter carefully. As has been said, the key issue with the South East Water disruption was the lack of communication, something that applied equally to Anglian Water with the outage that occurred at exactly the same time in South Northamptonshire. I was not told about the outage, and residents report not knowing what was going on for 12 or 24 hours, and the water delivery was inconsistent. What more can the Government do to send a clear message to the water companies that this lack of communication is not acceptable?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Lady for her work on the EFRA Committee. She is entirely right: it is unacceptable. I feel that I am a fair-minded person. I know that water companies cannot control the weather, and I know that they cannot build a reservoir overnight. However, they certainly can contact their Members of Parliament, contact their councils, get in touch with their local resilience forums and make sure that they communicate with their customers, as an absolute bare minimum, and that is exactly the conversation that I will be having with each and every one of them.

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

Alongside the failures in the south-east, during the recent heatwave there was a widespread disruption of water supply across swathes of my constituency, in Buntingford, Cottered, Ardeley and Throcking. In a country as wet as ours it should take a true organising genius to create disruptions in water supply, but we are on track for a water deficit of 6 billion litres in our country in the coming decades, and on top of that, AI data centres estimate that water consumption will reach up to half a trillion cubic metres every year. Does the Minister—whom I deeply respect—accept that if we are to prevent water supply disruptions from recurring year in year out, we cannot continue to have infinite increases in demand on our already vastly overstretched water resources?

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is right. It is astonishing that although, owing to climate change, we will experience wetter and wetter winters and drier and drier summers, we have no capacity to store water in the winter and use it in the summer. That seems to me to be absolute nonsense.

As for the issue of data centres, there is one possibility that I am keen to look into, and I touched on it in an earlier answer. Under the current legislation, water that is supplied by a water company must be of drinking-water standard. It strikes me as logical and sensible to say, “If water is being used for cooling purposes rather than for drinking purposes in people’s homes, could it not be of a different standard? Why does it need to be of drinking-water quality?” Where, for instance, we want to use water for data centres, for growth, why do we not—in a closed-loop system—use waste water? We have some legislation that has been drafted for the right purposes and sounds great—of course, a water company must produce water of drinking-water standard—but does it need to be of drinking-water standard if it is being used to cool machinery?

[Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)]

South East Water has openly and publicly admitted that it cannot supply drinking water for all the future homes that are planned for Kent. What is the Minister’s response to that specific concern, and is she having conversations with her colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government?

[Emma Hardy]

The short answer is yes. The previous chief executive of South East Water—or rather the current chief executive, who has not gone yet—met members of the water delivery taskforce a few weeks ago, with some of the councillors from the area, to discuss exactly that issue of how both water supply and housing demands can be met. I sit on the taskforce along with representatives of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, so we are all having the conversation together about how we build the homes that are needed without having an impact on the people already living in the area, yet also ensuring that new homes have the water that they require.

We have been assessing what is likely to happen over the next five, 10 or 15 years. What are the various water supplies that will be coming in? What impact will that have on house building? How can homes be built to a more water-efficient design? Those conversations are happening now, across Government. We need to achieve the right balance between ensuring that everyone has a home to live in and, at the same time, preventing a water crisis?

Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy Review

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

I am today updating the House on the Environment Agency’s review of the statutory flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy for England.

The current strategy, published in 2020, sets the long-term direction for managing flood and coastal erosion risk. Since then, our understanding of flood and coastal erosion risk has developed, which includes increasing recognition of the risk of surface water flooding.

This Government have also delivered significant changes to strengthen our national resilience to flood and coastal erosion risks. These include major changes to flood and coastal erosion funding rules to make it quicker and easier to deliver the right flood defences in the right places; the publication of the water White Paper, which sets out once-in-a-generation reforms that will transform the water system; and the UK resilience action plan, which sets priorities to strengthen resilience across society.

It is important that the updated strategy reflects the Government policy priorities to ensure that delivery is aligned with Government objectives. It must deliver and enable real improvements in protection and resilience for people and communities at risk of flooding and coastal erosion. I have, therefore, written to the chair of the Environment Agency, as the statutory body responsible for the strategy, to set out the Government priorities for the review. I have asked that the strategy should:

Recognise that deprived communities are more likely to face flood risk and coastal erosion, as well as face bigger challenges in recovery;

Reflect the latest evidence and learning on approaches to engaging the public in taking action to improve community resilience to flooding and coastal change as well as reflect best practice from community-voluntary groups in flood preparedness;

Reflect the ongoing work of the floods resilience taskforce to improve communications and co-ordination around flood preparedness and response;

Implement the Government’s updated flood funding policy to deliver a broad range of projects, including rebalancing investment towards capital and routine maintenance, repair and refurbishment, natural flood management and property level measures, and focusing investment decisions around value for money, continuing to seek partnership funding to make every pound of taxpayer funding go further;

Aim to define what good flood and coastal resilience looks like by setting out long-term strategic objectives and shorter-term measures, which should include exploring how a measure of national flood resilience could be developed over the longer term;

Provide strategic direction in support of lead local flood authorities to manage surface water flood risk including local skills and capability building, and supporting greater take up of surface water flood risk projects;

Align with latest Government policy on matters relating to water and English devolution such as the published water White Paper and the Government commitment to reorganising local government and supporting mayoral combined authorities, in particular taking into consideration the proposals for regional water planning to improve joined-up local decision making and delivery;

Reflect and showcase the learning and successes of long-term, place-based, integrated planning—such as “Thames Estuary 2100” and “Humber Estuary 2100”—with a view to embedding these approaches where they support Government priorities, notably growth, and deliver multiple benefits for flood, water and other outcomes;

Actively support the recommendations from the flood-ready review to encourage greater take-up of property flood resilience;

Consider the right long-term approaches to manage rural flood resilience, including a more sustainable approach to asset management;

Support the updating and implementation of shoreline management plans to inform investment and planning decisions over the long term, including the mainstreaming of innovative measures to adapt to coastal erosion;

Identify improvements to flood and coastal risk modelling and mapping, including sharing of flood depth information, to inform policymakers and practitioners in risk management authorities;

Explore ways to better assess the wider impacts of flood events on people, businesses, infrastructure and agriculture.

The Environment Agency will continue to engage with flood risk management authorities, local partners and stakeholders as the review progresses. I will ensure the House is kept informed at appropriate stages, including following public consultation on the updated strategy.

This work will help to ensure that the strategy continues to provide clear and effective direction for managing flood and coastal erosion risk, supporting communities, and preparing the country for the challenges ahead in a changing climate.

[HCWS46]

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2026 Written Corrections

[Emma Hardy]

The fishing industry did not engage on the wider testing on the guidance, but will be engaged on measures and met frequently on the policy and the statutory instrument.

[Official Report, Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee, 27 April 2026; c. 10.]

Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy):

[Emma Hardy]

The fishing industry was not engaged on the wider testing on the guidance, but will be engaged on measures and was met on the policy and the statutory instrument.

Draft Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2026

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Mrs Harris. The draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 26 February, are a critical part of delivering the Government’s clean power mission. The mission is central to strengthening the UK’s energy security, reducing household energy bills, supporting long-term economic growth and tackling climate change. Offshore wind plays an increasingly important role in delivering that energy security at a time when it matters more than ever. The statutory instrument provides a vital opportunity to accelerate offshore wind deployment while delivering meaningful strategic benefits for our marine environment, reflecting the Government’s belief that climate action and nature recovery must go hand in hand.

Let me begin by outlining the challenges that the draft regulations are intended to address. Under the existing approach, developers are required to follow the mitigation hierarchy by first avoiding impacts on protected sites, then minimising and mitigating impacts. Only where impacts remain unavoidable are developers required to deliver compensation, normally through measures that benefit the impacted feature. As offshore wind deployment has been expanded, it has become increasingly difficult for developers to secure compensatory measures that benefit the impacted features. That difficulty has become one of the main causes of delays in offshore wind consenting decisions.

The draft regulations address the issue by increasing the number of environmental compensatory measures available for offshore wind developments. Where measures that benefit the impacted feature are not available, or where a different measure can provide a greater ecological benefit, developers will be able to use wider compensatory measures. Those measures will deliver meaningful benefits to ecologically similar features or the UK marine protected area network more widely. For example, developers could support broader initiatives such as programmes to strengthen seabird populations.

Such innovative approaches illustrate how the Government are ensuring that environmental protection and economic growth can be pursued in parallel. The reforms are an essential part of the offshore wind environmental improvement package developed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Through the establishment of a library of strategic compensatory measures and the marine recovery fund, the package is already delivering a more strategic, co-ordinated and scalable approach for offshore wind while enhancing the marine environment.

Before I return to the details of the legislation, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its careful consideration of the statutory instrument. The Committee’s report raised concerns about the SI being laid before the House without the accompanying draft guidance. That approach was taken because the SI is a critical component of delivering the clean power mission. Proceeding in this way has enabled parliamentary scrutiny to proceed without delay while allowing sufficient time to finalise the guidance to the highest standard and, importantly, ensuring alignment with the devolved Governments. The guidance will be published on 21 May, aligning with the SI’s coming into force. That will ensure that stakeholders have clear and comprehensive guidance from day one. The published policy note and the Government’s response to the consultation provide Parliament with a strong basis for effective scrutiny.

The SI will enable offshore wind projects to deliver a wider range of environmental compensatory measures. Without action to expand the compensatory measures available, we will limit both the growth of offshore wind and our ability to deliver meaningful strategic benefits for nature. The SI applies to offshore wind developments in UK offshore waters and English inshore waters, and to certain offshore wind functions in the inshore waters of Wales and Northern Ireland. I hope that all makes sense.

The draft regulations introduce a new compensation duty specifically for offshore wind. It will enable wider compensatory measures and require that all compensatory measures must benefit the UK marine protected area network. Environmental safeguards are central to the new approach. They will ensure that the most effective compensatory measures are identified, selected and implemented to deliver the strongest possible outcomes for nature.

As part of that, the SI introduces a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish a compensation hierarchy. Developers must select compensation measures in line with that hierarchy, prioritising those that benefit the impacted feature, subject to certain circumstances. That hierarchy is a central pillar to the new approach and a key safeguard. Another is the role of the statutory nature conservation bodies, which will continue to play an important role in advising on environmental compensatory measures. Ministers will consider that expert advice alongside the environmental principles when approving wider compensatory measures.

As part of the reforms, we are exploring the development of a new public compensatory register. Our ambition is to bring together information on all compensatory measures delivered across the UK marine protected area network, improving transparency and helping us to identify where future compensatory measures could have the greatest impact.

I can also reassure hon. Members that the impacts of the SI on both offshore wind developments and the environment will be reviewed. The first report will be published by April 2031, with subsequent reviews at intervals of no more than five years, as required by the regulations. I recognise there may be some concerns about the reforms, particularly where they amend existing and established environmental protections, but let me be clear: this Government remain fully committed to delivering on both our climate and nature ambitions.

In conclusion, the SI implements necessary changes to environmental compensatory requirements to support the expansion of offshore wind deployment. We are confident that it will uphold strong environmental protections while enabling sustainable growth in offshore wind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I am grateful to hon. Members across the Committee for the considered points they have raised. Without these reforms, vital offshore wind projects will continue to encounter obstacles in securing appropriate environmental compensation measures, delaying progress towards clean renewable energy. This SI puts forward a balanced and pragmatic new approach to the environmental compensatory requirements for offshore wind, one that supports faster deployment of renewable energy and, crucially, unlocks new opportunities to improve the health of our marine environment.

I reassure the Committee that environmental protection sits at the heart of this policy, and our commitment to maintaining strong environmental protection remains firm. This SI makes targeted amendments to specific parts of habitats regulation in relation to compensatory measures for offshore wind. Robust environmental safeguards have been put in place to ensure that those changes will not weaken our existing protection, and to ensure continued compliance with all domestic and international environmental commitments.

In response to the points made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton, this approach is fully consistent with the Government’s wider environmental ambitions, including our commitment to 30 by 30. The UK has already designated about 38% of our seas as marine protected areas, demonstrating our determination to protect the marine environment at scale. Under the Environment Act 2021, there is a statutory target for at least 70% of marine protected area features in English waters to be in favourable condition by 2042, with the remainder in recovering condition. We know that some of these sites continue to face significant pressure.

Let me turn to the points on the guidance made by the spokesperson for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley. In response to the concern that important policy details have not been included in this statutory instrument, I reassure the Committee that we have been fully transparent in the published policy note on what the statutory instrument policy intention is and on what the accompanying guidance will cover. The guidance will explain the key elements of the statutory instrument and how it should be implemented and understood. It will also provide clarity on broader elements of existing habitat regulation requirements.

As I mentioned in my opening speech, I recognise the concerns regarding the Department’s decision to lay the statutory instrument before Parliament ahead of publishing the draft guidance. However, the statutory instrument is essential in delivering the clean power mission and ensuring that progress is not delayed. Although the guidance is an important supporting document, it is a technical and operational, designed to explain to practitioners how to put the policies into action.

We have tested the draft guidance with users and held constructive discussions with key stakeholders on its content. Alongside that, we have worked closely with the Scottish Government to ensure alignment as far as possible with their respective guidance. I reassure hon. Members that that engagement has strengthened the guidance, ensuring that it will be robust and fit for purpose when published on 21 May.

[Robbie Moore]

Can the Minister expand on whether fishermen were included as one of the key stakeholder organisations as part of the guidance.

[Emma Hardy]

I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s point on fishermen now—let me rearrange my papers. Regarding the impact of the statutory instrument on fishers, we are actively considering how best to engage marine users, including fishers, in the development of wider compensatory measures, particularly where those measures may affect their activity. Any future compensatory measures enabled by these reforms that could impact the commercial fishing industry will be fully assessed and DEFRA will work closely with the fishing industry to discuss practicalities, ensuring that any proposals are developed and implemented in a fair and workable way.

The hon. Gentleman raised an important point about spatial squeeze, which is a real issue for the fishing community and one that we certainly recognise in DEFRA. We have looked at the cumulative restrictions on the fisheries from offshore wind, as well as nature protection and how that impacts the spatial squeeze, and the Crown Estate is working with the sector to get its input into the processes to refine sites for future offshore wind leasing.

In many areas, different activities can co-exist and are able to work together. Marine Management Organisation data shows that there is some level of fishing in around 80% of the English sea. Depending on the fishing gear used, fishing can overlap with other activities. For example, fishing can still take place over telecom cables or in some other areas.

[Robbie Moore]

The Minister is being incredibly kind in giving way, but to push her on that point: has the guidance been stress-tested on the fishermen to date? The Minister said she will work with them. Have the fishermen been involved yet?

[Emma Hardy]

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a list of all the people that we have engaged with. I have been reassured by the Department that the engagement has been substantive and extensive across all the different organisations. Of course, if what I have just said is found to be not correct, I will make sure that I correct it for him, but that is certainly my understanding.

How it will work with the marine recovery fund was also mentioned. That fund is exciting, and the statutory instrument works with it to support the acceleration of offshore wind development. By looking at the different types of compensatory measures available for offshore wind impacts, the statutory instrument will increase the number and range of compensatory measures that can be added to the library.

The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley raised an important point about moving through the hierarchy. To be fair, a number of non-governmental organisations have said that they do not want developers to go straight down, and asked how we ensure that the hierarchy is in place and a developer does not go straight down to tier 3. I welcome the opportunity to expand on that now.

What we are going to be doing—[Interruption.] I have had inspiration—it just arrived; it happens like that sometimes. The fishing industry did not engage on the wider testing on the guidance, but will be engaged on measures and met frequently on the policy and the statutory instrument. I thank my officials for that inspiration.

There are two circumstances where it is permissible to move through the hierarchy, as outlined in the proposed compensatory hierarchy, published in the policy note. The first applies to the availability of measures for a developer to move to tier 2, or in some cases tier 3, if they can demonstrate that no, or insufficient, suitable tier 1 measures are available, or they can progress to tier 3 if no suitable tier 2 measures are available.

The second circumstance allows a developer to progress through the hierarchy if they can demonstrate that doing so will enable a greater ecological benefit. Progression to tier 3 will be allowed only if a developer can demonstrate that no tier 1 or tier 2 measures are available, or where tier 3 measures would deliver a greater ecological benefit. Developers must submit clear evidence to the consenting authority who will assess proposals on a case-by-case basis, informed by advice from statutory nature conservation bodies before allowing progression to tier 3.

Where tier 3 is permitted, developers must draw from the library of strategic compensatory measures. Measures can be added to the library only once they have been approved by the relevant Minister. We have tried to put in various safeguards throughout to ensure that tier 3 measures cannot become the default or easy options.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley for the important issues he often raises—I am sure he will continue to do so. He is a passionate supporter of his constituents. I thank him for his support for the statutory instrument. I hope I answered all the questions from all hon. Members. I thank the Committee, and commend to it the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Air Quality Update

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

This statement fulfils the requirement under section 80A of Environment Act 1995, to update Parliament on the progress and steps taken to meet air quality standards and objectives in England over financial years 2024-25 and 2025-26.

Air quality across the UK has shown sustained improvement over recent decades with emissions of all key air pollutants showing a declining trend. These long- term reductions mean the UK has met the current domestic and international emission reduction commitments for emissions of ammonia, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, non-methane volatile organic compounds and fine particulate matter—PM_2.5.

This progress matters for people’s everyday lives: cleaner air helps protect health, supports thriving neighbourhoods and contributes to the Government’s ambition to improve pride in place. Cleaner air also supports sustainable economic growth by helping people stay healthier and in work, improving productivity and making our towns and cities more attractive places to live, visit and invest in.

Protecting public health and the environment remains at the heart of our approach. PM_2.5 is the most harmful pollutant to human health. Under the Environment Act 2021, we are delivering against two separate Environment Act 2021 targets for PM_2.5—one to reduce maximum PM_2.5 concentration levels and one for reducing the population’s overall exposure. In 2024, the maximum PM_2.5 concentration level measured was 11 micrograms per cubic metre of air. Separately, PM_2.5 population exposure in England has reduced by 25% compared with 2018.

In the environmental improvement plan 2025, the Government increased the ambition of both PM_2.5 interim targets. We will review the 2040 statutory targets for PM_2.5.

We are also seeing progress locally. Between 2024 and 2025, the number of air quality management areas for nitrogen dioxide fell from 435 to 352, a 19% reduction, as locations achieved sustained compliance with the standards and objectives. Nitrogen dioxide exceedances reported by local authorities fell again in 2024, continuing a downward trend.

Building on this strong progress, we are continuing to take ambitious and targeted action across key sectors to meet our air quality standards and objectives, including:

Clarifying delivery priorities through a rapid review and revision of the environmental improvement plan setting out clear, measurable actions.

Embedding PM_2.5 targets into planning decisions through interim guidance and we have launched a pilot to trial more comprehensive guidance with planning authorities and developers.

Strengthening public communication by acting on an expert-led review to make air quality part of everyday conversations and commenced work on an air quality communications toolkit for directors of public health. This included establishing a new partnership bringing together communicators from the Government, healthcare professionals, and the NGO sector.

Improving transparency by modernising public access to air quality information via new gov.uk pages and a dedicated data service.

Enabling better local delivery by running practical webinars and providing detailed guidance to help local authorities develop more effective action plans.

Launching a consultation on a comprehensive package of interventions to cut fine particulate emissions from domestic burning, including more stringent emission standards for stoves, mandatory labelling of stoves and fuels and raised penalties for non-compliance.

Setting out the Government’s pathway for a strengthened environmental permitting regime for industry that supports quicker uptake of best available techniques, promotes innovation and improves regulator efficiency.

In July 2025, the Government published “Fit for the Future: 10 Year Health Plan for England”, which reinforces the importance of prevention and action on the wider determinants of health. This includes commitments to reduce harmful exposures and improve awareness of, and communications on, the health impacts of issues such as air pollution. We are supporting the Government’s mission to build an NHS fit for the future by continuing to clean up the air and protect the public from the harms of pollution.

While the direction of travel is positive, we know there is more to do to ensure everyone benefits from cleaner air. We will continue to tackle air pollution at all levels—helping individuals make informed choices, supporting local communities to take action, delivering national changes, and pursuing co-ordinated international action for the benefit of both the UK and the wider global community. We will continue to keep our regulatory framework under review to ensure it remains effective, proportionate and fit for the 21st century.

A further update to the House on our progress will be provided after the end of the financial year 2026-27.

[HCWS1520]