Water Sector: Public Ownership

Debate between Emma Hardy and Barry Gardiner

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 (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Emma Hardy and Barry Gardiner

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

Ofwat has said that it believes that the right level of debt should be 60%, yet it has taken no action against those companies whose level of debt has risen to as much as 80%. Can the Minister assure us that under the Bill, Ofwat will not only have the power to act when companies’ debt levels are too high, but will use it?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know how much he cares about this and many environmental issues. Amendment (a) refers only to the reporting arrangements for levels of debt rather than specifying the levels of debt that would be acceptable. It is about increased transparency, whereas his points fall more into the remit of the water commission, which is looking at all those issues as part of its wider work. I stress that the amendment is just about how information is reported and transparency.

The information must be made available in a prominent place on the water company’s website, ensuring accessibility for members of the public. Subsection (4) of proposed new section 35E also provides Ofwat with the power to determine the information that a water company must publish, as well as the ability to review requirements on financial reporting from time to time. That addition will ensure that reporting requirements keep pace with changes in the expectations and needs of bill payers. I would like to be clear, however, that the Government expect the power to be used to ensure that reporting requirements remain relevant, rather than to dilute or diminish the ambition of reporting requirements.

Financial reporting will also continue to be underpinned by pre-existing statutory obligations and licence conditions. In line with other requirements brought forward in clause 1, this new requirement will commence on Royal Assent. These amendments will help to rebuild public trust in the sector and provide the public with the levels of openness and transparency that they deserve.

I turn to the other Government amendment, which relates to the requirement for Ofwat’s rules to be confirmed by way of affirmative statutory instrument, as reintroduced by the motion tabled by Lord Blencathra in the other place. While the Government recognise that there were calls in the other place for increased parliamentary oversight of Ofwat’s rules, we have significant concerns that a requirement for Ofwat’s rules to be finalised through an affirmative statutory instrument would delay the rules being implemented.

We are clear that Ofwat’s rules should be brought forward as soon as possible. That will ensure swift and meaningful improvements in the performance and culture of water companies as they begin to deliver on the largest investment package in the history of the water sector. Requiring the rules to be confirmed by statutory instrument would risk delay to the rules coming into force. We also maintain concerns that the Lords amendments would compromise the independence of Ofwat, because they would require Ofwat’s rules to be confirmed through legislation prepared by the Government. That independence must be protected if we are to ensure investor confidence in the water sector.

The Government are confident that the Bill already provides for sufficient scrutiny of Ofwat’s rules as it is required to conduct a statutory consultation on the rules before they are finalised. Separately, Ofwat has already concluded an initial policy consultation on a draft of the rules and how they will apply. It received 11,700 responses on the rules through its consultation, which it is actively considering. As such, the Government are seeking to reverse the requirement and to introduce provisions in its place that will require Ofwat to provide its first set of rules in draft to the Secretary of State at least seven days before they are issued. I hope that hon. Members across the House will support that change, which will ensure that Ofwat’s rules are put into place as soon as possible following Royal Assent, in addition to the Government’s amendments to introduce new financial reporting requirements.

Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill

Debate between Emma Hardy and Barry Gardiner

2nd reading
Friday 22nd October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner]

I do agree with the hon. Gentleman, and that is why I was very keen to say at the beginning that this is about making Britain the best place to work. It can only be the best place to work if our businesses are thriving, and I believe our businesses can only be thriving if they have a well motivated workforce.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with me that if we do not end this abhorrent practice, we the taxpayers pay instead? If people end up on lower wages, they are going to have to claim more universal credit, so instead of the companies paying their tax bill, it ends up being the taxpayer.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am not sure whether I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that point, because I was going to make it myself later on in my speech, but it is a really important point. It shows that this is not just a human cost; it is an economic cost to the whole country as well.

In Manchester, a former bus driver told me that he was on three separate forms of blood pressure medication. The emotional strain on that man was heartbreaking. He was going to lose thousands off his pay, and the managers actually sent someone to his doorstep with the new contract, pressurising him to sign. That gives a whole new meaning to doorstep selling.

In Livingston, I met a delivery driver who was called in and threatened with the sack. He said his mind was in turmoil, but Tesco expected him to go out in a 40-tonne lorry and drive through a snowstorm to Elgin after receiving that news.