Flood Action Week

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

As we enter Flood Action Week 2026 (12 to 18 October 2026), I am updating the House on the steps this Government are taking to strengthen resilience to flooding and drought, improve public preparedness, and protect communities across England from the impacts of a changing climate.

This year an especially strong El Niño weather pattern is expected, bringing with it an increased likelihood of wetter and stormier conditions across the UK. Flood Action Week is an important moment to assess our resilience and ensure our communities, and those who work to support them, are prepared for the winter. Today I want to set out how we continue to strengthen that preparedness, improve public awareness, and increase resilience across the country.

Flood and Drought Resilience Taskforce

Flooding and drought are interconnected challenges that require a more integrated approach to water management. The winter of 2025-26 was the eighth wettest in England since records began in 1836. However, by August 2026, 71% of England had entered drought status. Currently, Wimbleball reservoir and Ardingly reservoir are still key areas of concern. This rapid transition between extremes underlines the need to strengthen resilience to both flood and drought risks.

To support this, I am announcing that the existing Flood Resilience Taskforce will be expanded and renamed the Flood And Drought Resilience Taskforce. Building on the success of the current taskforce in improving flood preparedness, the new body will bring together national, regional and local government, the Environment Agency, water companies, Ofwat, representatives of the farming sector and community groups to support a more integrated approach to managing the lifecycle of water in the environment.

A key priority of the new taskforce will be to champion the voice of communities by ensuring that the experiences of those affected by flooding and water shortages inform policy development and resilience planning through better engagement and communication.

The first meeting of the Flood and Drought Resilience Taskforce will take place tomorrow, 14 October 2026. The agenda will focus on assessing the nation’s preparedness for potential flooding this winter. Through the work of the taskforce, the nation is better prepared than last year, and its members have already improved their response. The first meeting of the new taskforce will discuss emerging learnings from the ongoing drought, and if improvements could be made to aid the nation’s resilience to both flooding and drought.

Flood information website

We have heard that people often struggle to know where to find clear, practical and trusted advice to inform them of the potential risk of flooding to their homes and businesses. As a response to this, during flood action week, the Environment Agency is launching a new Flood Action Online website. This will play a vital role in giving power to communities by helping people understand their flood risk.



Flood Action Online will serve as a one-stop shop. The website will connect people to existing services and flood information on www.gov.uk and other trusted Government services and advice. It will help them to navigate information in a more accessible, user-friendly way.

The website will promote practical actions that increase preparedness and resilience for people to protect their homes and businesses. Equally, it will encourage measures that can reduce the impacts of flooding on people, places and communities. I strongly encourage members of this House to promote this new resource to their constituents.

Flood Re and flood performance certificates

To be resilient, individuals and businesses must understand and reduce their own flood risks. We are working with Flood Re and insurers on the development of voluntary flood performance certificates, one of the recommendations of the FloodReady review that we continue to implement. These certificates will give people the option of better understanding their flood risk and the steps that they can take to make their properties more resilient.

Flood Re is launching the BeFloodReady platform, the property flood resilience hub, which will become the UK’s authoritative hub for property flood resilience information, guidance and support. It is designed to serve householders, businesses, academics, and policymakers. Recognising that flood risk is a long-term issue, this site will drive innovation and share best practice far into the future.

Three-year flood and coastal erosion investment targets

Earlier this year, I announced the Government’s new 10-year flood and coastal erosion investment programme, backed by record levels of funding. I can now set out the three-year targets for what this investment will achieve. Between April 2026 and March 2029, the Government will invest £4.2 billion in flood resilience, maintaining existing assets while delivering new flood schemes across every region of England.

Through this investment, we expect to:

better protect 200,000 properties;

increase the proportion of flood risk management assets at or above their required condition to 93.5%;

generate more than £27 billion of avoided economic damage, delivering almost £7 of benefit for every £1 invested;

create or enhance 2,500 hectares of habitat and improve 750 kilometres of river.

Flooding remains one of the most significant climate risks facing the country. Through record investment, stronger co-ordination, and a more joined-up approach to water resilience, the Government are taking practical action to protect people, property and infrastructure across England. Equally, through better, more accessible public information, we are empowering communities to mitigate their flood risk and protect their homes and businesses.

[HCWS370]

Digital Waste Tracking: Mandatory Report Receipt of Waste Service

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

Today I am pleased to update the House of continued progress with the implementation of digital waste tracking. On 1 October 2026 the report receipt of waste service, which represents the first phase of the Government’s move from paper-based waste record keeping to a modern digital system, became mandatory in England and Wales —it will become mandatory in Scotland and Northern Ireland on 1 January 2027. Approximately 12,000 sites are expected to be within the scope of this first phase.

The Prime Minister has been clear that this Government will not stand by and allow our communities to be blighted by waste crime. But the waste systems we have inherited have been exploited by criminals and are not fit for purpose. The current paper-based approach to tracking waste creates significant information gaps, making it more difficult for regulators to identify poor practice and tackle waste crime effectively. Waste crime is estimated to cost the UK economy around £1 billion each year, while also damaging the environment, undermining legitimate businesses and creating risks to public health. Digital waste tracking has been developed to address these challenges by improving the quality, timeliness and accessibility of waste data across the United Kingdom.

Digital waste tracking is a UK-wide service being developed jointly by the UK Government and the Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The service will replace paper-based recording of waste movements with digital records, providing a more transparent and efficient system for businesses, regulators and Government. The first phase focuses on waste received at permitted and licensed waste receiving sites, including facilities such as transfer stations, paper mills, incinerators and composting facilities.

The report receipt of waste service is now live and mandatory for permitted waste receiving sites to use. It enables operators of in-scope waste receiving sites to submit information digitally. Records must be submitted within two working days, beginning the day after waste is received. This will provide more timely data, helping regulators identify suspicious patterns earlier and take prompt, targeted enforcement action where criminal activity is suspected.

The service delivers significant benefits for Government, regulators, businesses and the public. By providing better-quality and more timely waste data, it will support regulators in identifying and responding to suspected waste crime and illegal waste activity. It will improve transparency throughout the waste management system and help create a more comprehensive picture of waste movements. In doing so, it will support environmental protection, public health and the transition towards a more circular economy.

For legitimate businesses, digital waste tracking will reduce reliance on paper records and support more efficient reporting processes as it directly integrates with commercially available software that businesses can use. Over time, it will provide greater consistency in the way waste information is captured and shared, helping businesses meet their regulatory obligations through modern digital systems and deliver a safe, effective service for the British people.

To support successful implementation, the report receipt of waste service has been available to test voluntarily since April this year. Affected organisations have been encouraged to register for the service, confirm their reporting route, test their systems and complete operational readiness activities ahead of the relevant mandatory date. Software providers, trade associations and regulators have also been working closely with Government to support awareness and preparedness across the sector.

This is the first stage of a wider transformation programme, and we will build on it. Digital waste tracking will be expanded in future phases to cover more of the waste movement chain, including waste carriers, brokers, dealers and other operators. We will continue working with regulators, businesses, software providers and the devolved Governments to prepare the sector for those changes, support compliance and make sure the service is introduced in a stable, practical and user-focused way.

This Government are committed to cracking down on waste crime, supporting compliant waste businesses and protecting our environment. Digital waste tracking is a major step towards a modern, transparent and more effective waste regulation system but this is just the start of the action this Government will take to stamp the scourge of waste crime out of our communities.

[HCWS361]

Water Sector: Public Ownership

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I offer my sympathy to the Prime Minister on the loss of his father. Losing a parent hurts, whatever age you are. I thank my hon. Friends and other hon. Members for being so kind when I lost my own dad earlier in the year. Thanks, everybody.

I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for securing this important debate. He cares deeply about this issue, as do so many members of the public—many more, I imagine, than the 208,000 people who signed the petition.

I pay tribute to all the citizen scientists, environmental groups, campaigners and Members of Parliament from across the House. I particularly mention Julie and Reuben; I hope I am not giving too much away when I say to Julie how deeply moved both I and the previous Secretary of State—my right hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds)—were after we met her, and how touched and privileged we felt to be presented with one of Heather’s shells as a reminder of the need to campaign on this. I promised her that we would focus much more on public health. We have generally lost that focus, and one of the key things in all the reforms we are trying to make is putting public health back at the heart of water. That is why we created the water system to begin with—for public health—and it should be focusing on that right now.

All the failures that hon. Members mentioned—all the people who have become sick and the impact on places that people love—are outrageous. They talked about the places where they used to paddle but cannot now, and places they used to visit. It is horrific that we have ended up in this situation.

I have always wanted to introduce a water Bill that meets the political moment and the public appetite for change. I am delighted that it feels that we are closer to that. The change in Prime Minister has opened up options that were previously not available; as I will mention, more things are suddenly on the table. I apologise in advance for being an irritating politician—we can quote that one—who is not going to give specific answers, but that is honestly because we are working through things right now. We are working through things across Government, and are looking to introduce a Bill that meets that appetite for change.

Hon. Members have had many key messages. As the shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), mentioned, I would normally respond to everyone. I apologise that I am not going to do that, because too many spoke. However, I hope hon. Members recognise that I have been a very open Member of Parliament. We received a parliamentary question from an Opposition Member asking how many meetings Ministers have had with Back-Bench MPs. I have done 141.

[Barry Gardiner]

First, I reassure my hon. Friend that she is not an irritating Minister at all; I think she is generally held to be a very good Minister. Can I tempt her to enlarge slightly on what she said? When we talk about an SAR, people say, “Let’s start with Thames Water—it is the obvious one to start with.” Might the reason for the Minister’s hesitation to elaborate be that the Government are now looking much more holistically at what could be done with the whole water sector?

[Emma Hardy]

We are looking at all of the sector and what can be done right across it. The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear, in all the comments he has made, that, in his words, the current water sector is “a leaking monument” to a system that prioritises private over public. He has used similar words on a number of occasions.

I completely understand why people are asking fundamental questions about ownership. For too long, pollution, poor performance and financial instability in the water industry have left customers and communities to pay the price. Infrastructure is crumbling, as we see with water outages. Lots of hon. Members mentioned national security, water and resilience. How can we meet the changing climate when we have a system that is so ineffective? I want to move towards a better system, in which we are thinking about the management of water in a catchment—about water, flooding, wetlands and nature, and how we can do all that together.

To do that, we need significant reform to give people and places greater control and to make the industry work for them again. Believe it or not—I know that nobody here would question it—there are some who question whether climate change is real. It is real, everyone. Just remember what it was like in summer. Our water industry must be fit for climate change of the future, delivering clean waterways, reliable services and fair and predictable bills.

Whatever the ownership model, we face a challenge around ageing infrastructure. We need major investment. The provision of basic services and the prevention of sewage spills is a fundamental requirement of the sector. Some 30 years of privatisation has not left the system in a good state, and that is probably an understatement. I want to create a system that protects customers, improves the environment and secures reliable water services for the future.

There is no single easy fix, but the Prime Minister has been very clear that the failures of the past cannot continue. We will look at all possible solutions for the water industry and bring forward reforms to make the sector work for people and places again. As the Prime Minister has said, later in the year our 10-year plan for Britain will set out plans for stronger public control over essentials such as water.

I will not pretend that there is one simple answer to the problems facing the sector, but what is not in question is the need for significant reform. That means tougher regulation, which we have started to see through the increased inspections by the Environment Agency, the court cases coming through and the fines it is starting to issue. We have that tougher regulation, but we still need greater enforcement, greater financial resilience and absolutely a stronger voice for customers and communities. Many hon. Members talked about democratic voice, which I agree is missing from the water sector. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and I had a quick conversation about how we need to bring people’s voices and that accountability back into place. I know that the Prime Minister is completely committed to looking at devolution and at how organisations can be responsive and answerable to place.

Bathing water sites are prioritised for upgrades. The hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) is no longer in her place, but I know that she and I share a love of pre-pipe solutions, which is looking at nature, wetlands and how we can create spaces for water to go to prevent it from entering the system. On looking at assets, we have introduced MOT tests, which has uncovered more problems. When people first go in to inspect, they will identify different problems, and we are seeing that.

I want to pick up on a point made by one hon. Member—I apologise; I did not write down their name—about the trade unions and the workers. We can never forget that the workers on the frontline are not responsible for the failures of the water companies. I have absolute respect for them. I meet with the trade unions on a regular basis, and one thing they mention is the abuse that workers get when they are out working. They are not responsible—in fact, I would say that the workers out there on the frontline are the ones holding these companies together. I pay wholehearted tribute to the trade unionists and workers in all those water companies, who are doing a great job in incredibly difficult situations.

I completely agree that the system is not fair at the moment. We need to look at rain water management. England’s drinking water is world-leading. There are many things where we can say there is failure, but our drinking water quality is incredibly high. On referendums, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) mentioned that he was scarred by a previous referendum, the result of which I still feel deeply myself. But I think we know what the public think about this sector.

The Prime Minister has been clear that the Government’s priorities must be the public’s priorities. People want more ownership and control over the things that matter most to them. Public trust in the sector has been damaged by pollution, financial difficulties at some companies and a failure to invest sufficiently in infrastructure. Channel 4’s “Dirty Business” further highlighted the public concern about sewage pollution, shining a light on issues that matter to communities.

Public interest should be at the heart of how our critical services operate. For decades, the essential services that underpin daily life, including water, have suffered from over-privatisation, leading to high costs to the public. The Government are clear that the public have a right to expect those services to be affordable and accountable. We have established a public control taskforce that will rewire the state, examining how public control across sectors, including water, can be utilised to return them to public service and bring down costs for families. That ambition is reflected in the reforms we are already taking forward: strengthening accountability, improving performance, giving customers and communities a stronger voice, and ensuring that the water sector works in the public interest. We know that bold action is needed, and that is why we are fundamentally reforming the water sector.

I conclude by thanking the campaigners, the 208,000 people and everyone involved in working together on this issue. I hope we can all unite and push forward together to build the water system that we need for our communities, for our environment and for our public health.

Water Management

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

I genuinely thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing the debate. I really enjoyed listening to his speech. There was so much agreement from the Government side of the House on pretty much everything he said. He described what I would refer to as “pre-pipe”, which I am really interested in. It is about, exactly as he described, looking at how we stop rainwater ending up in our sewerage system and often contributing to pollution incidents—the system becomes overwhelmed —when, as it is rainwater, it could be elsewhere.

The hon. Gentleman touches on one of my favourite things to talk about: nature-based solutions—how we can use nature more, create soakaway areas and create sustainable urban drainage. That is absolutely correct. I am passionate about thinking about how we manage water. We often talk about how to solve problems around pollution, but if we better manage rainwater that falls from the sky, we can help to deal with pollution, as well as many other things. Reservoirs are hugely important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) pointed out, and we should absolutely be using them, but they are part of the wider system—collecting the rainfall and putting it where we want it, rather than it ending up where we do not.

It is obviously for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to talk about building standards, but I can tell the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, because I asked MHCLG ahead of this debate, that it is reviewing water efficiency standards in the building regulations for new homes, and considering how to enable water reuse systems, including rainwater and grey-water systems, where those are safe, practical and cost effective.

I have mentioned this issue a few times, and I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern—“astonishment” may be going a bit too far—that we use drinking water to flush our toilets. To give the other side of the argument, which I have had played back to me, the rules mean that the water supplied to domestic properties has to be drinking water quality. I hope that I am not telling the House things I should not, but we are exploring how we can guarantee that we do not mix up the water pipes that go into homes and therefore cause problems that way. This always has to be safety first. That is why the only water that can enter a property—unless a private individual has set up their own system—has to be drinking water quality.

[Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that much progress has been made in regard to rainwater harvesting, not just by MHCLG but by the Minister’s Department—not least the landmark report, published this March, by the Drinking Water Inspectorate? The report exactly explored a potential governance framework that sets out standards for non-potable water in domestic settings, and talks about accreditation and standards, to ensure that these systems, when we are ready to bring them in, are safe and will be properly maintained.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend; I was trying remember what the report was, so I very much appreciate the intervention. She is absolutely right. We have some of the best drinking water in the whole world; we have incredibly high standards for the health of our drinking water. The report by the Drinking Water Inspectorate looks at how we can do this in a safe way, and I am keen to explore that. We are going to be short of drinking water if we continue at this scale in the future. Thinking about where we are using it, rather than using it to flush our toilets, feels like a way forward. There is a huge amount of cross-party thinking on how we can do that. This comes back to the topic of how we manage water. How do we think about water? Where is it falling?

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

The Minister is obviously aware of the work of the Labour rural research group. One thing we have been talking about is whether environmental land management schemes need longer-term certainty. Farmers are trying to invest in proper water management, as she is describing, but they often need more than three years to do so. Does she agree that her Department may need to look at how we can arrange for ELM schemes to be longer term, specifically when it comes to water?

[Emma Hardy]

I am hesitant to agree to something that is not in my brief, but I will certainly mention that to the Farming Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan).

The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is right that when we think about water management, we often talk about reservoirs; those are very much needed, and do matter, but so does managing water where it falls—thinking about roofs, streets, gardens, farms and developments. That is why we want a more practical, prevention-focused approach to water management that captures more water, wastes less of it and plans developments in a way that looks at local catchments.

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

One thing that will benefit farmers in my constituency is the £50 million through the sustainable farming incentive to allow farms to build more water storage on their land. That is going to be of huge benefit, because their food stocks are down going into winter after the hot summer. We also have an issue with flooding. Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act has not been enacted, meaning that every development has a right to be connected to the drainage system, which increases the amount of flooding. If the Minister could take that forward with colleagues at MHCLG, I would be very grateful indeed.

[Emma Hardy]

On the point about farm reservoirs, my hon. Friend is correct. Today I held a meeting of the national drought group, and we had a focus on agriculture and the impact that drought has had on farmers. We are talking now about potential rain, El Niño and flooding, but drought is still here in this country. One of the conversations we had was, how can we support farmers to hold more of the water that comes down from the sky? We are focusing a lot on funding farm reservoirs, but we also need to think about filling farm reservoirs. How can farmers get them full for the summer, which we need, given our changing climate, with more rain in winter and drier summers?

I love SUDS—I get very geekily excited about sustainable drainage systems. I know I am shocking you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will try to convince you that they can be really nice, and they can be spaces for nature as well. I am not winning, am I?

[Peter Swallow]

I completely agree with the Minister. There are many SUDS in Bracknell Forest that have been delivered as part of alternative natural green spaces, and they create lovely nature corridors in our community. I just wanted to put that on the record.

[Emma Hardy]

This is like geeks united—we love our SUDS! They are brilliant.

The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is right: the point about the maintenance of SUDS has been raised a few times. It is okay to build them—I actually think most are built and designed in a very effective way—but there is also the question of how we ensure they are maintained and who is responsible for that.

[Gideon Amos]

I just want to make an observation. When I trained as an architect, I had to follow a whole series of regulations on drains about what the diameters are, what the gradients are—everything has to be followed. For SUDS, there are no such regulations. One is regulated; the other is all down to policy. As many Members have said, we need proper regulation for SUDS, because things will go wrong if we do not get schedule 3 or similar legislation on to the statute book.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the expertise he brings to this House from his previous occupation. That is one of the things we are trying to work through with industry and MHCLG. We all agree that SUDS are a really good thing. Where they may not be as effective is the maintenance issue: who is responsible for maintaining them, and who pays for it? That is the kind of thing we are thinking about.

This goes back to the point I made earlier. When it comes to planning, are we thinking about the management of water in an area? With our changing climate going from drought to flood, are we thinking about where we want the water? It is a slightly different, nuanced conversation to say, “When it floods, where do we want the water to go? When there is a drought, where are we going to get the water from?” That means thinking about it more holistically in a way that we have not done previously, when we thought about each point in isolation.

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

In January last year, Storm Chandra caused devastation in East Devon, and there was significant flooding in Ottery St Mary. Does the Minister think that, as well as attenuation ponds and SUDS, people should be encouraged to store water in their own gardens using such things as water butts?

[Emma Hardy]

Absolutely; the more we can all do collectively, the better. We are coming up to Flood Action Week, beginning on 12 October, when I will be calling on every single Member in this House to do what they can to get the message out to their constituents about being prepared and how we can all collectively play our part in what could be quite a challenging winter.

The national planning policy framework requires all new developments to incorporate SUDS designed and maintained in accordance with national standards. There are some new national standards, and the hierarchy within those standards prioritises collecting rainwater for non-potable uses. We are also committed to better joined-up water planning, with decisions on housing, drainage, water supply and waste water taken together, so that growth is supported in the right places and communities are better protected.

In conclusion, I have really enjoyed this debate and talking about some of my favourite things: natural flood management, SUDS, rainwater and water management in a catchment—it has ticked all my favourite boxes. Managing rainwater where it falls is practical, local and important. It can help households to use less mains water, reduce pressure on sewerage, improve drainage, support flood resilience and make new developments more sustainable. That is why this Government continue to support better management of rainwater. Our water system faces significant challenges, but this Government are taking action, cleaning up rivers, tackling pollution at source, holding water companies to account, improving resilience to flood and droughts, and securing investment needed for the future. Through reform, investment and stronger regulation, we are rebuilding public trust and creating a water system that works for people, the environment and our economy.

Question put and agreed to.

Local Authorities: Aluminium Recycling

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I welcome all hon. Members back to Westminster Hall; it is good to start with a debate where there is much agreement.

I thank the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for securing the debate, and I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to the previous Minister for Nature at the Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh). She did so much to progress the reforms I will go on to mention, including the deposit return scheme, which is of clear relevance to today’s debate—it will play a vital role in increasing the capture of drinks containers, improve the quality of material collected for recycling, and reduce litter. I am a huge supporter of the deposit return scheme, and I will continue that work and her legacy.

I recognise the long-standing interest of the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills in this issue. I was reading about how she has been collecting aluminium cans herself and using that for local charity, which is a brilliant idea and such a nice way to reduce litter in the local area and raise money for charity. We should think about the principle of such materials being viewed as valuable resources; I wholeheartedly agree with that.

I also agree with the comments the hon. Lady made about fraud in the system. She will be aware that, only a couple of weeks ago, the Prime Minister made a big announcement about cracking down more on waste crime. I went to visit Kidlington, which looks a heck of a lot better than it did previously and is nicely cleared up. The hon. Lady is therefore right to talk about fraud and how we can increase transparency in the system by looking at registration. There was a consultation on reforming the packaging waste recycling note system earlier in the year, which is looking at changes to address the issues she mentions.

It seems to me that there are two issues when it comes to recycling. One is how we collect more of the things we should recycle, rather than putting them into landfill. The other, which I am particularly passionate about, is how we recycle more of those things here in the United Kingdom. We still have a throwaway culture in the UK, and we throw away so much stuff that can be reused and recycled. As has been highlighted, we should think about the huge value of what we put into our bins and send to our councils. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) mentioned the problems he has with his council not recognising the value of what it is throwing away. There are many reforms that we can make in government, but there is not much we can do about incompetence.

Our recycling rate has stalled between 42% and 44% for years, apart from in Hull city council, where we recycle 51% of everything we collect. Considering the area, the demographic and the challenges we have—I could spend the whole debate talking about flats and recycling, but I will not—that is hugely important. I completely agree with the comments from hon. Members that every tonne of aluminium we do not recycle needs to be dug out of the ground somewhere and sent across the world somehow. It makes complete and utter sense to recycle more of what we have here in the UK. It is good not only for the environment but for industry; it is good for the Prime Minister’s ambition to reindustrialise our country, create jobs in different areas, bring back manufacturing and expand our manufacturing base. What is not to love about doing all those things? It is why I am quite passionate about this and so delighted to have it within my brief.

The hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills asked about councils losing out through aluminium recycling. As she knows from all her in-depth research, they have different contracts and agreements. I can raise her point directly with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Minister to see what more can be done on transparency. From DEFRA’s point of view, we publish a monthly market overview so that councils can see what the market price of aluminium is, which is information that DEFRA has. I will have to speak to the MHCLG Minister about how they can encourage councils to share their information. From my point of view, they would surely want to do so to ensure that a neighbouring council is not getting a better deal.

[Tessa Munt]

Half the problem is that councils often think they are doing the right thing, and they have put something in their contract that says everything needs to be recycled in the UK. It goes back to my point of how to define recycling. There are problems all the way along the chain. If a waste management company can say, “Yes, we have recycled everything,” because it has put everything into a facility, separated it and sorted it, and the council is happy to accept that, then something has to change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

Absolutely. We need to keep building on the reforms we have introduced and make things simpler and more transparent for everyone. I completely take the point that local people need faith. If someone is living near an aluminium recycling factory, they will be really incentivised to recycle all their aluminium. I will raise the point with the MHCLG Minister about how we can encourage councils to be more transparent.

Before I move on to the next point, I want to address the points from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who raises a serious issue. It is great that recycling rates in his area are at 50%, which is really impressive, but I recognise the point he makes about how easily aluminium can be recycled and, if that material is collected, how quickly it can be recycled. DEFRA officials will meet and work with officials in Northern Ireland on the implementation of the deposit return scheme and see how we can support them to be as successful, if not more successful, than here on the mainland.

Lots of Members raised concerns about exports and what we are doing about them. Legitimate exports of waste for recovery are permitted when they comply with domestic and international controls. Reprocessors and exporters must be accredited by the relevant regulator. Hon. Members have heard me mention the packaging waste recovery note reforms as well. Where the UK cannot recycle materials economically, exports help those materials to be recycled rather than sent to landfill or incineration, which is the worst of all worlds. The new fit and proper person test for operators, together with monthly reporting requirements, further strengthens oversight of that part of the market. However, I will say again that my personal feeling is that I would love to see more of it recycled here in the UK.

[Tessa Munt]

As I explained, one place I went to was Warrington. It is clear that next year that plant, Novelis, will be able to take all our cans, for example—we do not need to think about the other bits of aluminium that there are around the place. That is a Government-funded expansion, and it is brilliant. Can we not do something that stops this stuff going abroad on the basis that it is a critical mineral?

[Emma Hardy]

Absolutely. Our aim is for 65% of municipal waste to be recycled, and 67% of aluminium packaging. The hon. Lady mentions Novelis, which is the leading aluminium producer and recycler, and it has committed, as I think she was alluding to, £66.5 million to upgrading its aluminium recycling plant. One of the things we are hearing is that the changes we are making through the deposit return scheme—the higher-quality collection of aluminium because of the way the scheme works—mean that recyclers are looking to expand and do a lot more, which is fantastic because that is creating highly skilled jobs in those areas.

I have already mentioned some of the other reforms: extended producer responsibility, simpler recycling and the deposit return scheme. Industry estimates that those three different reforms will underpin £10 billion of investment in recycling, with new sorting and processing facilities, and will create 25,000 jobs. Those are jobs here in the UK—UK jobs for people in this area—creating and supporting growth in every postcode, which is exactly what the Prime Minister is talking about. That is really quite exciting, and it is because of those three reforms introduced by this Government.

Aluminium demonstrates exactly why the transition to a circular economy is not some academic theory, but something that matters to us all. Capturing that valuable resource gives us the opportunity to reduce waste, lower emissions and strengthen industrial supply chains. That is good for local authorities, manufacturers, economic growth and the reindustrialisation of this country. Bringing together stakeholders from the steel, aluminium and critical minerals sectors, the Government have created, under my predecessors, the metals circularity group to look at how we can create high-quality scrap, because that matters a lot as well.

I thank the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills. It is great to kick the year off with something that we all agree on and that we are all pushing in the same direction on: how can we recycle more here in the UK? Our existing circular industry already delivers tens of billions of pounds in economic value and hundreds of thousands of jobs, but I know there is more potential that we can unlock. If we get it right, we can build something durable: a circular economy that turns yesterday’s rubbish into tomorrow’s raw material and delivers growth, resilience and jobs in every corner of this country—in fact, “growth in every postcode”, to borrow a phrase from the new Prime Minister. That is the outcome I am focusing on delivering for every council and corner of this country.

Water Company Resilience to Heatwaves

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Written Statements

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

I wish to update the House on the action this Government are taking to strengthen water company resilience to heatwaves and sustained hot weather.

The Met Office outlook for July to September 2026 indicates that a hotter than usual three-month period is more likely than normal. Higher temperatures can place significant pressure on water resources and infrastructure, increase customer demand, and heighten the risk of localised supply interruptions. It is therefore essential that water companies maintain robust plans to protect customers and sustain supplies during periods of severe and prolonged heat.

This year has already been challenging for water supplies. Some parts of the country have received lower than average rainfall this spring, such as the Anglian region where only 39% of expected rainfall fell. Combined with record spring temperatures, this has reduced reservoir and groundwater storage and river flows across a number of regions.

Alongside recent heatwaves, water companies have increased supply to meet rising demand. During the Met Office red heat warning, Thames Water supplied an additional 316 million litres of water per day compared with the previous year, while Anglian Water increased production by up to 30%, equivalent to supplying a county the size of Lincolnshire. Despite these pressures and some localised supply interruptions, the sector avoided widespread disruption and maintained supplies to the vast majority of customers.

On Thursday 2 July, I brought together the senior leadership of Water UK and those water companies most affected by the recent Met Office amber and red heat warnings to review the sector’s response to the recent period of extreme heat, assess preparedness for the remainder of the summer, and agree the actions necessary to strengthen resilience and protect customers during any future periods of sustained hot weather. The meeting examined lessons from recent heatwaves and the actions needed to reduce future risks to customers.

Temporary use bans are in place across a number of regions in response to high levels of demand. TUBs are currently in place for South East Water customers in Kent, Southern Water customers in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, South West Water customers in mid-Devon and parts of east Devon, and across the Anglian Water region. Cambridge Water and Affinity Water have also announced TUBs which will come into force shortly. Such measures can help manage demand and protect supplies during periods of sustained pressure.

Everyone has a role to play in using water wisely, particularly during periods of sustained hot weather. I expect water companies to provide customers with clear and timely information on the practical steps they can take to reduce the amount of water they use during periods of peak demand.

The Government will maintain close oversight of water sector resilience throughout the summer. My officials remain in regular contact with the sector, regulators and resilience partners to monitor demand, water resource availability, infrastructure resilience and incident preparedness. I expect all water companies to manage periods of exceptional demand, protect vulnerable customers and respond effectively to incidents. Where performance or preparedness falls short, I will not hesitate to take the action needed to minimise impacts on customers.

I welcome Ofwat’s announcement of a £30.5 million redress package for South East Water for failures that left thousands of households without water for days. The package was developed following a joined-up approach between water regulators, targeting the best possible action to address SEW’s failures. This is in line with the Government proposed water reforms, which will involve the new regulator taking a supervisory approach—enabling a broader and better understanding of company performance, earlier intervention and prevention of further decline. The package also includes requirements to produce a performance improvement plan, setting out how the company will deliver sustained improvement in its performance, and an independent monitor to support Ofwat to assess progress against the plan.

A reliable supply of clean water is fundamental to public health, economic growth and community resilience. Alongside immediate action to prepare for summer pressures, this Government are delivering the long-term reforms needed to build a stronger and more resilient water sector.

Through our programme of water reform, we are strengthening regulation and accountability while ensuring companies deliver the investment needed to improve infrastructure and resilience. We will create a single, powerful regulator, giving Government and regulators, for the first time, a clear system-wide view of company performance and stronger tools to intervene where companies fall short. We will also introduce a water ombudsman, ensuring that customers have a stronger voice and clearer routes to redress when things go wrong.

This builds on the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which introduced the toughest sentencing powers ever applied to lawbreaking water company executives and powers to ban unjustified executive bonuses. Together, these reforms will strengthen accountability and help restore public confidence in the water sector.

We will also introduce statutory resilience standards, improve asset mapping and strengthen oversight of critical infrastructure to help water companies prepare for climate change and more frequent periods of extreme heat.

[HCWS279]

Waste Management Sites

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 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 chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I begin by apologising to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) and to the rest of the House for my late arrival to the debate. I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. She may have noticed that I am not the Minister for Nature, my hon. Friend for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), but I hope to do her justice in responding to this debate because I know how hard she has worked on this issue and how seriously she takes it. I thank hon. Members from across the House, who have made valuable points today. This debate reminds me why it is so important to deal properly with rubbish and why all Members of the House support bins, whether they are Counts or not—sorry for my throwaway comment.

People rightly expect their community to be a safe, clean and pleasant place to live. They expect clean air, thriving natural spaces and confidence that waste is being managed responsibly. Most importantly, they expect environmental regulation and waste management to be working in the interests of local people. I absolutely agree, and so do the Government.

I will quickly summarise some of the actions that the Government have taken, led by my hon. Friend the Minister for Nature, and the achievements of the waste crime action plan commitments. My hon. Friend has already reformed the carriers, brokers and dealers regime, which was debated in the House of Commons just last week. She introduced digital waste tracking, the legislation for which was debated on 16 June. In March, she published updated statutory guidance and a code of practice for local authorities on litter enforcement powers and how to use them. She has also published best practice guidance for local authorities on using their powers to seize vehicles related to fly-tipping.

As well as that, the Minister has overseen the doubling of the Environment Agency’s waste crime enforcement budget, with an additional £45 million over the next three years. As my hon. Friends have rightly pointed out, it has been difficult for the Environment Agency to do its job given that it has faced 14 years of austerity and cuts, but it is now getting additional money to carry out its duties. The Environment Agency is building a new waste intelligence and analysis unit and has already started interviewing new staff for it. It has also secured access to key land registry data sets, allowing for quicker identification of the landowner when new illegal waste sites appear.

Courts can use their powers in the Crime and Policing Act 2026 to put points on the driving licences of those guilty of fly-tipping. We will make fly-tippers clear up their own mess, and we will consult on how to make that commitment a reality. We have also started clearing up some of the worst illegal waste sites that blight communities up and down the country. We are moving quickly for the clear-up of the site at Bolton House Road in Wigan and installing fire and security mitigations.

This is not time for reviews of waste; it is time for more action, and that is exactly what this Government are doing. In that context, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood for her tireless efforts in drawing attention to the Jameson Road landfill in her constituency. Her constituents made a fantastic choice at the last election in voting for a tireless champion for their community and someone who —I know this from experience—does not let an issue go once she gets on to it. When it comes to my hon. Friend, we know that we have to do exactly what we are told.

As my hon. Friend set out, too many of her constituents have struggled with persistent odour complaints for far too long. Nobody should feel trapped in their homes, workplaces or schools because bad smells mean that they cannot go outside or even open their windows. We are obviously keeping a very close eye on sites such as Jameson Road, and we are using our regulatory powers through the Environment Agency to ensure that operators are held accountable for poor compliance.

The Environment Agency has already served enforcement notices to mitigate the worst effects of the odour at Jameson Road. My hon. Friend knows that because, as she mentioned, she meets with the Environment Agency every week; she is doing a brilliant job of holding them to account. In May earlier this year, the Environment Agency varied the permit to restrict the site to accepting only low-risk waste such as soil, concrete and bricks. A regulatory notice is also in force, which requires the operator to remediate the site, including temporary covering and subsequent permanent capping works. Those measures, alongside enhanced inspections and expanded monitoring arrangements, are expected to lead to a reduction in the incident reports associated with the site.

The Environment Agency will continue to maintain close regulatory oversight of the site and hold the operator to account—I know that my hon. Friend will, too—for delivering improvements that local communities rightly expect. The operator must continue to deliver the required improvements, and local communities should be confident that regulatory intervention will follow if standards are not met. Let me be clear: where compliance falls short at any waste site, the regulator is prepared to take further action as necessary, and it will work closely with the Government to ensure that communities are protected from serious harm.

I recognise that many other hon. Members in attendance today have poorly performing waste sites in their constituencies, and I will do my absolute best to answer as many questions as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) raised concerns about what is happening at the landfill in her area. As she will know, we already have the extra £45 million, which should help in her area.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) and I have had a meeting about the flies; flies were also mentioned by a couple other people. It is awful when we see a huge swarm of them, and they can enter people’s homes. We have had a number of meetings about the issue and we are staying in close contact. To answer another of my hon. Friend’s questions, I should say that our analysis is that the Environment Agency needs better enforcement powers, which is why we have committed in the waste crime action plan to give more powers to the EA as a priority for the teams. It is also why we are giving an extra £45 million, as has already been mentioned.

I have to pay tribute to the campaigning of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee). He has not missed an opportunity in the voting Lobby or when seeing me around Parliament to raise what is happening in Walleys Quarry. The latest information I have for him is that, following the operator’s liquidation, the Environment Agency is managing the site to prevent pollution risks. Work is focused on site stability, maintaining capping, managing leachate and developing longer-term engineering solutions. Although the odour reports remain very low, the Environment Agency is continuing to monitor the site to see if there is any increase in the odour. I know that my hon. Friend is on the case and will mention it to me if anything changes there.

The hon. Members for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) and for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) mentioned the Lower Compton landfill site. The latest I can tell them about that site is that permanent capping of the operational area has been completed, and new gas infrastructure is due to be installed. The monitoring identified occasional exceedances of odour annoyance guidelines, but no exceedance of the World Health Organisation’s human health guidelines. The waste permits specify acceptance controls, and those can include sampling and testing.

Let me see who else I have on my list: to respond to the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane), I should say that the site she mentioned has had 30 fires since reopening in February 2025. I believe most of those to be due to arson, and most to be outside the site. The Environment Agency is working closely with the operator and other partners on investigating the fires on the site.

I turn to what my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) said. The Government committed in our manifesto to moving the UK towards a circular economy. We will be publishing our circular economy growth plan soon. On the Pilsworth site in my hon. Friend’s constituency, the Environment Agency continues to closely monitor odour issues, which remain below World Health Organisation levels of concern, although that is not sufficient to reassure my hon. Friend’s constituents. That is why we are investing in the EA, with new enforcement powers and new funding.

I absolutely champion the local constituents whom my hon. Friend mentioned, who have come together to campaign on this issue. I reassure them and her that they absolutely have a voice with this Government. We are listening to them and taking them seriously.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi). We know each other from previous campaigns together, so I know what a brilliant campaigner she is. I am pleased that some mitigations have been made and that things are starting to show improvements. I support her call for more joined-up work across the different agencies. If I can support her in helping to get that joined-up work, I absolutely will.

[Brian Mathew]

Could the Minister say a few words about a plastics tax, or a tax on single-use plastics, to make the recycling of plastics economic?

[Emma Hardy]

I am conscious that I am speaking outside my brief in responding to this debate, but I will ensure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Nature hears the hon. Member’s comment and gets back to him with her thoughts on that one.

I do not want to miss anyone out. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) raised the work that the Environment Agency is doing and—again—the problems that people have with flies. I totally agree with her point about putting people before profit—it should never be the other way round. A land remediation pathfinder scheme is launching this autumn, and support is available for local authorities’ work if needed. That will fund additional local authority resources, so additional money is coming in for some local authorities.

I want to give my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood time to respond, so I will speed up.

I say to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that although waste policy is devolved and the Northern Irish circumstances are unique, we enjoy a strong relationship with our colleagues in Northern Ireland. We are soon to commission new research on the drivers and regulatory factors underpinning waste crime, and are actively working with Northern Ireland colleagues on the design of that research.

I hope I have responded to most of the comments made by hon. Members. I know that they will continue to speak to my hon. Friend the Minister for Nature where necessary and make sure that the issue continues to be a priority for her and the rest of the Government.

Just in case this is my last time addressing everyone in this role, Dr Murrison, can I say thank you to my wonderful officials? Thank you to all the team I have worked with; it has been an absolute pleasure. Hopefully I will be back in the new term, but we never know. For the moment, over and out.

Future of Thames Water

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for inviting me to respond to his concerns about the future of Thames Water. I have listened with his interest to his comments, and I hope I will be able to add some facts to the debate. I also accept his sympathy and anger on behalf of his constituents. Indeed, they must feel very angry about the fact that water was left in such a state, and that the Environment Agency’s budget was cut by half by the coalition Government, who also introduced self-monitoring. The Environment Agency was unable to fulfil its duties during the time of the coalition Government, and the regulators did not put forward forceful accountability for the water companies. It was left to this Labour Government to clear up the mess left by the coalition Government and 14 years of the Conservatives. I am sure the hon. Gentleman shares my anger about that—I certainly felt angry about it when I came into government and saw the mess that we had been left to clear up.

Let me remind the hon. Gentleman exactly what we have done. We introduced the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 within six weeks of entering government, to raise standards, enforce accountability, and make pollution cover-ups a criminal offence. We banned more than £4 million in bonuses, and unlocked money in private investment to rebuild vital infrastructure. Just last week we introduced automatic penalties. There is more I could mention, including 10,000 water inspections, which is many more than happened after the slash and burn of funding for the Environment Agency by the coalition Government. We have restored to the system the accountability that has been missing for so long.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

My constituents are cheering on the work that the Government have done by getting a grip of this situation after the Environment Agency was left to mark its own homework, and the self-monitoring and regulation framework failed. Will the Minister say more about the dedicated supervisory teams in the White Paper, which will be working to stop this happening again and ensure that Thames Water changes in future?

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is quite right to point out how self-monitoring, which was introduced by the coalition Government, was such an utter mistake that has done so much damage to the water industry. It is why we are in the current situation. The purpose of the supervisory regime is to be able to intervene earlier, and it works alongside the performance improvement regime so that we can hold companies to account. That is why we are abolishing Ofwat—

[Charlie Maynard]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Emma Hardy]

I have heard quite a lot from the hon. Gentleman, so I would be most grateful if he would not mind giving someone else a chance. We are looking at introducing the performance regime for the same reason, because we want to ensure that we can intervene early to stop the abject failure that we saw under the coalition Government.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

Every week in my surgeries I hear about the consequences of Thames Water’s failures. An elderly widowed constituent was left without running water after it failed and botched the installation of a water meter, and she was forced to shell out hundreds of pounds on an emergency plumber to remedy the situation. Will the Minister confirm that she understands the anger of constituents like mine with regard to Thames Water and its continued failing? Will she confirm that she will keep all measures under review?

[Emma Hardy]

It is true that I feel angry on behalf of all our constituents who have been so badly let down by the system that we inherited, and that is exactly why we have taken the action that we have. There is, of course, lots more to do—nobody is saying there is not—but we have to acknowledge the dire straits and the mess that we inherited. We are going to bring forward a clean water Bill to deliver on our promise to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas, and not just for today but for generations to come. The reforms will create a single powerful water regulator to act, and we will ensure that it has teeth in the way that the current regulator does not.

Turning to some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Witney about the consortiums proposal, regarding the recapitalisation proposal being negotiated between Thames Water, London & Valley Water Consortium—a group of Thames Water’s creditors—and Ofwat, I reiterate that this Government will always act in the national interest. Before I turn to the proposal itself, it is important to be clear about the respective roles and responsibilities of the parties involved, because there is so much misinformation and misunderstanding out there. I welcome the opportunity to at least introduce a few more facts into the argument about the proposals.

Ofwat, as the independent economic regulator, is responsible for assessing that proposal and deciding whether it meets the relevant regulatory and statutory requirements, including whether it is appropriate to take the proposal forward for consultation. However, section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991 places a duty on both Ofwat and the Secretary of State to exercise their respective relevant functions in the manner best calculated to further or achieve certain objectives. This includes protecting customers, securing the proper delivery of water and sewerage services, ensuring that companies can finance those services and that statutory obligations are properly carried out.

[Mike Martin]

Does the Minister think that the Secretary of State exercised those duties well when, under the Blair Government, Macquarie was allowed to come into Thames Water and South East Water and asset strip those companies?

[Emma Hardy]

Quite clearly, some of the behaviour that we have seen in the past from water companies shows that the regulatory system did not work, and that is exactly why we are changing it. Of course, between Blair and the current Government there were 14 years of Tory Government and five years of coalition Government during which those Governments could have taken the actions that we are taking today.

On 16 June, the Secretary of State gave her preliminary views on the consortium’s proposal to Ofwat, with reference to section 2 duties of the Water Industry Act 1991. She was clear that she does not believe that the current proposal goes far enough to protect customers and the environment. She cited three particular concerns in line with her duties: unfair costs to customers, delays to infrastructure investment and delays to environmental improvements.

However, the decision on how to assess the proposal and whether to proceed with consultation ultimately rests with Ofwat as the independent regulator. It is therefore important that the Government respect those boundaries. While the Secretary of State may express views in accordance with her statutory duties, it would not be appropriate for the Government to direct Ofwat’s decision making, prejudge the outcome of its assessment or be seen to exert undue influence on an independent regulatory process.

We are working closely with Ofwat, which will engage with the consortium on any revised proposal. It is important to be clear that it is ultimately a matter for Ofwat to decide whether to consult on the consortium’s proposal. However, I reassure the House that while the company is stable, we stand ready for all eventualities and the Secretary of State takes her duties very seriously.

I will also use this debate as an opportunity to address some of the misconceptions that have developed about special administration. Too often, SAR is presented as a simple lever that the Government can pull whenever there are concerns about a water company’s performance, but that is simply not the case. The reality is that there is a high bar for the imposition of a special administration regime. A company can enter into a SAR only if it becomes insolvent, or if there has been such a serious breach of its principal statutory duties or an enforcement order that it is no longer appropriate for the company to retain its licence.

Where performance is concerned, any application for a special administration regime would have to be supported by a robust and compelling body of evidence and would ultimately need to satisfy the courts. Bringing a case forward without sufficient evidence would not only risk the failure of that case, but waste a huge amount of taxpayers’ money. For any case brought forward, the Government and Ofwat would need to be convinced that there was a robust and compelling body of evidence. That is quite different from what is presented out there too often—that this is just a button the Government can press at will.

[Calum Miller]

I am glad the Minister has moved on to the substance of DEFRA’s case. Will she clarify for my residents whether she considers a company that is spending 33% of the income it gets from customers on servicing its debt and paying a 10% premium on that debt is actually viable as a company? Will she set out for the House what she considers to be the measure of insolvency for a privately held monopoly?

[Emma Hardy]

As I have just said, on the issue of performance, cases have to be brought forward to court, and the court must be convinced that the company is not performing—I will move on to insolvency.

This issue is why regulators start by using the full range of supervisory and enforcement powers available to them where appropriate. Companies must be held to account, put forward credible plans to improve and deliver for customers on the environment. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why we are introducing a new performance improvement regime through the clean water Bill.

The performance improvement regime will help to prevent poorly performing companies from falling into a cycle of decline, allowing regulators to step in before a company approaches the point of failure. It will strengthen accountability, support improvements in performance and provide a clearer pathway for intervention long before special administration may be required.

Let me address another misconception about special administration. Some suggest that placing a company into special administration would simply allow the Government to take over and run the company directly. That is not how the regime works. A special administrator is appointed by a court and has specific legal duties and objectives. It must manage the company’s affairs, businesses and property for the statutory purposes set out in the Water Industry Act.

The special administrator’s primary responsibility is to ensure the continued delivery of essential water and waste water services while securing a long-term solution for the business. Depending on the circumstances, that could mean rescuing the company, such as through a restructuring, or transferring it as a going concern to new owners. That is why the special administration regime exists to protect customers and maintain vital public services while providing a framework for recovery or transfer. Customers continue to receive their services throughout the process, and the special administrator operates under the supervision of the court and within a clear legal framework.

I know the hon. Member for Witney is particularly concerned about whether the consortium meets the criteria of acting as the ultimate controller of Thames Water. Let me use this opportunity to address his concerns. The classification of ultimate controller is a matter for Ofwat, as the independent economic regulator, by reference to the terms of the company’s licence. Ofwat has given a detailed explanation of why it does not consider the creditors to be the ultimate controllers of the company in its letter to the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), dated 8 September 2025.

Ofwat has stated that one of the reasons why it does not believe creditors are in a position to materially influence the company’s policies or affairs is that it does not have the right to appoint directors to the board, and it does not hold any governance or veto rights over the Thames Water business plan or other strategic decisions that the company’s board is making. I am reassured that it has reviewed the matter and that the ultimate controller of the company has not changed—

[Charlie Maynard]

How is that possible?

[Emma Hardy]

This is the thing with the hon. Gentleman: he makes many assertions in this House when he stands up to comment, but then he refuses to allow me to address and answer them. I am still answering his point about the ultimate controller. If he wants to ask me a question, he should have the decency and respect to listen to the answer.

I am also reassured that Ofwat will continue to keep the position of Thames Water’s ultimate controllers under review, and that it has made clear to the company its expectation that the company will continue to monitor whether there is, or may be, a change to the ultimate controller position.

I hope that what I have said has introduced a few facts to what can otherwise be quite an inflamed conversation. This Government are serious about tackling water company failure, acting on behalf of customers and protecting the environment. We have demonstrated this with the action we took on our very first day in office, and the action we have taken every day since. I am always happy to discuss issues related to special administration. I have held a private briefing with the hon. Member for Witney before. I would do so again, but what I do not like is when things are presented to the House in a way that is—I am not allowed to say dishonest, so how can I put this?—incorrect. This Government will always act in the national interest, and while the company is stable, we stand ready for all eventualities, including being ready to apply for a special administration regime if necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

4. What steps she is taking to help tackle river pollution.

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

This Government inherited record levels of river pollution. We have already passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, making pollution cover-ups a criminal offence; more than doubled the number of Environment Agency inspections to 10,000 a year; and, only yesterday, introduced automatic fines for polluting water companies. Our clean water Bill will stop water companies marking their own homework and deliver better outcomes for consumers and the environment.

[Rachael Maskell]

This weekend, I will be competing in York’s dragon boat race on the River Ouse, but with 3,779 sewage dumps last year, the river is the second worst for pollution. The clean water Bill gives us the opportunity to take control of our water, ending the cycle of profiteering from failure, leaving our rivers full of sewage and chemicals and inaccessible to swimmers, rowers and all who enjoy them. Will the Minister urgently review her plans and take water back under public ownership, so that we can clean up this dirty business?

[Emma Hardy]

I wish my hon. Friend and her team the very best of luck in this weekend’s boat race, and I share her outrage at the amount of pollution we are seeing in so many of our beautiful rivers. One of the things in our clean water Bill that is worth highlighting is the introduction of regional planning, to give local communities more say over the water system in their area.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

In 2025, sewage was dumped into the Ashridge stream, Emm brook, Barkham brook and the River Loddon in my constituency. Residents are thoroughly fed up with Thames Water’s repeated pollution and lack of accountability. Will the Government introduce mutual ownership of water companies, professionally managed, to put customers and the environment first?

[Emma Hardy]

I also share the hon. Gentleman’s outrage at the amount of pollution he is seeing in the environment, and recognise how much this impacts not only the local environment, but the people who live in his area. As he knows, the White Paper we published states that we will develop a clear transitional process for companies that wish to explore alternative forms of ownership, including not-for-profits and mutuals.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

5. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the Teddington direct river abstraction proposal on the environment.

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

Without action, we face a possible water supply deficit of 5 billion litres a day by 2055. This is why projects such as the Teddington direct river abstraction scheme are vital, to help secure London’s water supply during droughts. Any discharges to the Thames from this scheme will be subject to strict water quality assessments.

[Sarah Olney]

Two months ago, Ham and Kingston riverside became the first site in London to gain bathing water status, but Thames Water’s ill-conceived Teddington direct river abstraction proposal will see treated sewage discharged into the Thames above Teddington lock. Thames Water has submitted a report to the Environment Agency on the testing of a pilot plant, which shows that after just one month, the water quality would fail to maintain PFOS chemicals within regulatory limits. That bathing site is already a popular destination for local residents. It would be a travesty if Thames Water were allowed to dump treated sewage into the stream, so will the Minister meet me to discuss the environmental and social impact of the Teddington direct river abstraction proposal?

[Emma Hardy]

I recognise that Ham and Kingston riverside is one of the first designated bathing water spots in the whole of London, which is quite exciting for the city. When we designate bathing water sites, the water quality is monitored regularly throughout the season. That information is made publicly available, and of course, any allowance for any abstraction scheme or water recycling scheme will be subject to strict environmental tests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

9. What steps she is taking to help tackle pollution in the River Wye.

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

The level of pollution in the River Wye is unacceptable and we are working to accelerate progress to tackle it, including by funding a £1 million research programme to identify sources of pollution and develop practical solutions to improve water quality. We are also rolling out early pilots of regional planning, which involved a workshop with stakeholders in the Severn region on 15 May.

[Catherine Fookes]

I thank the Minister for all her hard work on the River Wye, but as she knows, time is running out for that iconic river. With temperatures rising to dangerous levels, our fish stocks will be further affected. The Wye needs a water protection zone across the English and Welsh parts of the river to mandate larger riverside buffer zones, prevent soil erosion and force authorities to crack down on polluters. The proposed clean water Bill could give the Minister an opportunity to bring in a water protection zone, so can she promise today that she will do that and make sure that this Government are the one to save the River Wye?

[Emma Hardy]

I recognise all the important work that my hon. Friend has put into this important campaign, and how much she cares about protecting this beautiful river. We will continue to work with the Environment Agency to explore all the available options, which include, of course, a water protection zone. Any designation must be evidence-led and targeted to ensure that the right measures are in place to tackle pollution effectively and to deliver lasting improvements to water quality.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

My constituency has been devastated by water pollution. We are now nearly seven years into a planning moratorium that has decimated the construction industry, because of pollution in the River Lugg, a tributary of the Wye. We are 10 years on from the first court case that said the Government should publish a plan to clean it up, but that plan, last year, set out that the current measures will not get close to fixing the problem. We urgently need a water protection zone. Will the Minister come to North Herefordshire to meet local campaigners, citizen scientists and farmers to understand why we need that water protection zone, and make a commitment to bring one in to finally resolve this problem?

[Emma Hardy]

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes), we are working with the EA to explore all the available options, which includes a water protection zone. It is an incredibly important issue, and I know how much the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) cares about it —I recognise that the Wye is a beautiful river. We have the £1 million research project, which is working directly with farmers and land managers. The EA has already conducted 1,246 farm inspections and issued 1,183 improvement actions around the River Wye since 2022.

[Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)]

10. What progress she has made on implementing the waste crime action plan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

T7. The current heatwave shows no signs of abating, and during such times the demand for water increases. The water companies are already imposing restrictions on the supply of water, so what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the water supply and when will she consider nationwide restrictions?

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

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Last Thursday I met some of the water companies from the areas that will have the extreme heatwave, to be reassured that they will not run out of water during that period. Ofwat has also launched a public information campaign about the value of water. He will know from my previous answers that we have the water delivery taskforce, which is looking at water supply, house building ambition and growth to ensure that we have the water we need. It is one of the reasons we need to get on with building the nine reservoirs, as none have been built for the past 30 years.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

T4. The Secretary of State recently met my constituent Reuben Santer, whose case was featured in the “Dirty Business” documentary. Reuben campaigns to ensure that real-time sewage information is available to bathers at the beachside. Will the Minister work with local councils and water companies to explore the feasibility of such a scheme?

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend raises a hugely important topic, and Reuben’s story was extremely moving to hear at first hand. I extend my deepest sympathy to the families of all those who have been affected by sickness through using the water around England, and I share their anger, outrage and desire for change. We reformed the Bathing Water Regulations 2013 so that they are fit for purpose, and we are looking at water quality classification information. We also have the Environment Agency’s Swimfo website. We will continue to look at how we can best keep bathers safe.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

T8. The Minister has heard from both sides of the House this morning about the deepening crisis for independent pig producers and farmers. There are concerns that a quasi-cartel might be operating, to the detriment of small independent producers. Will the Minister consider using his powers to make a referral to the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator or the Competition and Markets Authority, so that those producers can be protected?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

The beautiful River Wey runs through my constituency, but storm overflows from the Farnham sewage treatment works are increasingly polluting the river, affecting my residents and businesses and those further afield, including the Peper Harow Park fly fishers in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt). What discussions is the Minister having with Thames Water about stopping the discharges from the Farnham sewage works?

[Emma Hardy]

The hon. Member is right to feel outraged at the amount of pollution and the situation with Thames Water. He will have heard the Secretary of State’s comments on what we are doing on Thames Water and her early views on the original deal put forward by the creditors to clean this up. That is why we took action with the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 to bring in tougher regulation, and why just yesterday we announced automatic penalties for companies that continue to pollute.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

The flooding outside Tesco in Stafford is a great example of why holding local authorities to account on drainage really matters. I recently learned that the drains were last cleaned in 2020, during covid; without regular maintenance, they will continue to block. While I am glad that it looks like a fix is finally on its way, routine drain clearance should not require an MP’s intervention. Will the Minister tell me and the House what she can do to ensure that council leadership meets its basic maintenance obligations, before the next rainfall shows that maintenance has not been done again?

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there is no excuse for not maintaining flood defences. The Government need to hold the local authority to account for that. It has had an increased settlement and has the money with which to do the job. I hope that this lack of action by the local authority is noted by voters at the next election.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

Draft Justification Decision (Generation of Power by the RR SMR) Regulations 2026

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 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 Justification Decision (Generation of Power by the RR SMR) Regulations 2026.

It is now an extra pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, as I am slightly less warm than I was a few moments ago.

The regulations were laid before the House on 3 June. They are an important step towards enabling the deployment of Rolls-Royce small modular reactors in the UK, supporting our energy security, net zero and economic growth. They give legal effect to the Secretary of State’s decision that the technology is justified under the UK’s regulatory framework for practices involving ionising radiation.

The regulations do not give approval for the building, use or funding of small modular reactors, but set out that legally the Secretary of State’s decision was justified. That means that the technology’s benefits outweigh the potential risks to health from radiation exposure, allowing it to proceed towards deployment in the UK. The Secretary of State identified a range of benefits. The Rolls-Royce SMR has the potential to provide reliable low carbon electricity at scale, helping to power homes and meet growing demand, while supporting the transition to net zero.

The technology is based on well understood pressurised water reactor technology and can contribute to a more secure home grown energy system, reducing reliance on imports. The development and deployment of the technology are also expected to create opportunities for UK jobs, manufacturing and supply chains.

The benefits were weighed against the potential detriment. The evidence indicates that radiological health risks would be low, with well established regulatory arrangements in place to limit exposure. The assessment also found that the technology would not introduce new categories of radioactive waste and that waste can be managed through existing UK arrangements, including the future geological disposal programme for the most hazardous waste. Wider environmental impacts are considered manageable, with site-specific issues addressed through the UK’s planning and permitting regimes.

This decision follows a thorough, evidence-based process informed by independent regulators, statutory consultees and a public consultation in 2025. There were 50 responses to that consultation. Most respondents agreed that this is a new class of practice and that there was sufficient evidence to assess the technology. All views were considered alongside regulators’ advice before the Secretary of State reached her decision.

This is a generic, non-site-specific decision: it does not grant permission to build or operate a reactor anywhere in the United Kingdom. Any future project would be subject to the UK’s established independent regulatory processes involving environmental permitting, nuclear site licensing and planning consent. Those are separate decisions taken later on a site-specific basis. That ensures that issues such as safety, security, environmental protection and waste management are subject to detailed, independent assessment before any project can be brought.

The regulations extend across the United Kingdom but do not require any part of the UK to host such a facility. They do not change devolved responsibilities: matters such as planning, environmental protections and waste management remain subject to the relevant devolved arrangements.

In summary, the regulations give legal effect to the Secretary of State’s decision that the benefits of Rolls-Royce SMRs outweigh their potential radiological health detriment. This statutory instrument is a necessary step within the UK’s regulatory framework to enable that potential. Together, the evidence supports a clear conclusion: this technology will support energy transition and net zero, and it will contribute to the UK economy. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats for supporting the regulations. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley asked about delivery timelines; obviously, those are not determined through the justification process. Industry has set out indicative timelines for deployment, which are subject to a separate decision and sit outside the scope of this instrument.

I note the hon. Gentleman’s interest in the matter and will make sure that it is passed on to the Department for Business and Trade, which is the responsible Department. I share his excitement about the high-skilled jobs that this can bring to the UK and how it can give wider socioeconomic benefits. I also share the positivity expressed by the Liberal Democrats.

The evidence provides clear and consistent picture. The risks are low and this technology offers real benefit for energy security, net zero and jobs in supply chains in the UK. It is right that this practice should be justified under the UK’s regulatory framework. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.