Illegal Waste: Organised Crime

Debate between Emma Hardy and Helena Dollimore

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy]

The Government are aware of the appalling case of illegal dumping in the hon. Member’s constituency, and I absolutely share his constituents’ anger. I, too, have seen the photographs and videos, and it is no wonder that he feels moved to bring forward this urgent question. There is a criminal investigation under way, and an Environment Agency restriction order has been served to prevent access to the site and further fly-tipping. The local resilience forum has been notified to explore opportunities for multi-agency support.

I understand that the Minister with responsibility for nature, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), has offered to meet the hon. Gentleman when she returns from COP, and I know that she is keen to fulfil that offer. I do not want to pre-empt the findings of the criminal investigation, but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Environment Agency is working very closely with local partners, and that the offer of continuing the conversation outside the Chamber is there for him.

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

I thank the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) for bringing forward this urgent question. As the Minister knows from her visit to my constituency last week, millions of plastic beads recently washed up there. After initially denying any involvement, Southern Water has admitted that it was responsible, and that they came from its waste water treatment plant. This is a huge environmental catastrophe, not least because we know that the beads pose a serious risk to wildlife, and we are awaiting further investigation of just how toxic they could be. At my public meeting on this issue last week with over 100 residents, Southern Water admitted that the use of these beads is outdated, and that there are better modern methods. I recognise that the Minister cannot comment on the live investigation by the Environment Agency, but does she agree that the Environment Agency must look at the use of these beads, and at how we can prevent such an environmental catastrophe from ever happening again?

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is formidable and impressive. Frankly, I am delighted and proud to be on the same side of the fight as her, and she has led an incredible campaign. I went to see these beads myself, and they are appalling. They are tiny plastic beads embedded in the sand. People are having to remove them with sweeping brushes and sieves; they are literally sieving the sand to remove thousands of beads, up and down the coastline. She is right to feel angry and upset about the issue.

As for the use of such beads being outdated, I will write to all the water companies to ask them who is still using these beads. If companies are still using them, I will ask what mitigations are in place to prevent them escaping, and what their plans are for looking at alternative methods. I agree with my hon. Friend that we do not want this to happen anywhere else.

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

Debate between Emma Hardy and Helena Dollimore

Committee stage
Thursday 9th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Emma Hardy]

We expect the commission to report to the Government in June. I reassure the hon. Member that when I respond at the end of every session, I will go through each and every amendment in turn.

I turn to Government amendments 1 and 2 to clause 1. The Government have carefully considered all non-Government amendments made in the other place and how they fit within the wider plans for reform of the water sector, including the amendments tabled by Lord Roborough and Lord Cromwell. I thank them, and indeed the other place, for their careful consideration of the Bill, particularly for the constructive way in which they worked with the Government during the Bill’s passage through the Lords. That collaborative approach enabled the Bill to be strengthened, for example, through the introduction of new requirements relating to the implementation of measures in pollution incident reduction plans. However, the Government have determined that the amendments from Lord Roborough and Lord Cromwell are not necessary and should be removed from the Bill.

Government amendment 1 concerns financial reporting. During the Bill’s passage through the other place, it was amended in such a way that required rules made by Ofwat under clause 1 to include reporting requirements on company finances. The Government strongly agree with the need to ensure water company finances are closely monitored, especially given the current financial issues experienced by some companies. However, having considered the Lords amendment in detail and having had further discussions with Lord Cromwell about the intent behind his amendment, we feel that it is duplicative of existing processes as well as conditions in water company licences.

Ofwat already has processes in place to monitor where a company may be heading towards financial difficulties. It is already a condition of water company licences that companies are required in their annual report to publish by a set date financial performance metrics, including interest on their borrowing, financial flows and analysis of their debt. Based on those reports, Ofwat sets out its observations on financial resilience across the sector in its “Monitoring financial resilience” report. Ofwat is also alive to the potential for financial engineering to occur outside of regulated companies and is thoroughly monitoring the financial position of all water companies. The Lords amendment would therefore duplicate existing requirements, with the potential to create confusion in what is already a complex regulatory landscape. This is important: we also retain concern about the potential for the Lords amendment to pre-empt forthcoming reforms following the independent commission led by Sir Jon Cunliffe. On that basis, the Government have tabled Government amendment 1 to remove Lord Cromwell’s amendment from the Bill.

[Helena Dollimore]

During the debate, we have heard a lot of words from the Opposition parties, but we had very little action during their 14 years in Government. We on the Government Benches have raised clear examples pointed out by Ofwat where it has not had the necessary tools to ban bonuses when it wanted to do so with Southern Water. While we are on that topic, I express my surprise that the hon. Member for Waveney Valley has not turned up to this sitting of the Committee.

[Emma Hardy]

I have to say that it is slightly disappointing that we do not have a full contingent for such an important Bill Committee, which matters so much to people up and down the country. There could be personal reasons, so let us reserve judgment, but it is a little surprising to me too.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Emma Hardy and Helena Dollimore

Thursday 12th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy]

Of course, we recognise the impacts of the cost of living on all our constituents, but the years of under-investment by the Conservatives mean that we need £88 billion-worth of investment in the industry. Customer bills will be ringfenced under the changes brought about by the Government, and if that money is not spent on infrastructure improvement, it will be refunded to customers. Of course, the final bills are determined by Ofwat, not the Government.

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

T4. My constituents in Hastings and Rye got their water bills this month. Many of them were shocked to see their bills going up despite the failures of Southern Water, which include sewage dumped along our coastline, flooding in our town centre and leaving us without water. It has even charged us for the five days when the taps ran dry. What are the Government doing to clean up the mess left by Southern Water and by the Conservative party?