Woodland Creation

Emma Lewell Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of woodland creation.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate on woodland creation, which my hon. Friend the Minister just described as the most wholesome debate we are going to have this week. I secured it because I really benefited from the beautiful blue and green spaces that I grew up alongside, and it is important to provide opportunities to benefit from accessible, beautiful blue and green spaces to everyone across the country.

Green and blue spaces are not just a luxury but essential infrastructure for our climate, nature and people’s everyday lives. Trees and woodlands cool our towns and cities, reduce flood risk and revive biodiversity. They support both medical and physical wellbeing, strengthen social connections and give people access to nature close to home. We have many missions as a Government, but I think providing good blue and green spaces, including through the creation of new woodlands, is one way we can help to support them all.

When green and blue spaces are planned well, they demonstrate that growth and environmental responsibility are not opposing forces but natural partners. I believe my home city is living proof of that. It is a new town created by the Harold Wilson Government of the 1960s, and from its very beginning the city was designed around green and blue corridors, with parks, woodlands and waterways woven into the fabric of daily life. That founding principle continues to shape the city today. Modern development sits alongside ancient landscapes, historic waterways and diverse habitats for wildlife. As a result, Milton Keynes now benefits from over 6,000 acres of parklands, rivers, lakes and woodlands, supported by more than 22 million trees—my fantastic city has 80 times more trees than the number of residents.

Over time, the city has protected and enhanced its natural assets. Ancient woodlands remain accessible and cherished, while parks and waterways connect neighbourhoods. Nature is not pushed to the margins but placed at the heart of the city. Many places are now trying to retrofit that approach, but Milton Keynes understood it from the start.

I have previously spoken to the Minister about the wetland arc project, led by the Parks Trust in Milton Keynes, with support from a National Lottery Heritage Fund grant. Once completed, this uninterrupted blue and green corridor will significantly enhance one of our city’s greatest assets. It supports wildlife, provides vital flood mitigation and carbon capture, and gives residents access to nature on their doorsteps. As the impacts of climate change become far more visible in our communities, the importance of wetlands and woodland creation cannot be overstated.

According to the 2025 global wetland outlook, around 22% of the world’s wetlands have been lost since the 1970s, placing immense pressure on biodiversity and increasing flood risk. The wetland arc will stretch across the north of Milton Keynes, covering 355 hectares, which is around 500 football pitches of parkland. What excites me most about the project is the understanding of wetlands as multifunctional spaces: they are not only habitats for wildlife but places that protect communities from flooding, support active travel and connect local people.

Under the stewardship of the Parks Trust, another great invention of the Milton Keynes Development Corporation, the wetland arc has the potential to become a distinctive and accessible landscape for the whole city, strengthening biodiversity while remaining open to everybody. We must not only create new woodlands for today, but think about stewardship into the future. I was reminded of the power of the Parks Trust’s local stewardship just last month, when I joined the trust to plant trees in Stanton Low Park. Among them was a “tree of hope”, a sapling grown from the Sycamore Gap tree. Only 49 of them were gifted across the UK, and I am proud that one now stands in my constituency.

Elsewhere in my constituency, Linford wood offers another powerful example of how woodland can be protected and enjoyed within a city. This 97-acre ancient woodland, with its network of footpaths and carved timber sculptures inspired by woodland wildlife, is deeply loved by local residents across the city. It shows that ancient woods are not just a relic of the past, but living spaces that continue to enrich modern communities. What makes places like Linford wood so valuable is not only their ecological importance, but their role in people’s day-to-day lives. Families walk in the wood at weekends and runners use it for shaded paths. It is part of the route I am using to train for this year’s London marathon —the Minister is welcome to sponsor me, to support my local hospice.

Woodlands are not just abstract environmental assets but part of the rhythm of community life. I hope that, throughout the debate, we talk just not just about the woodlands in rural parts of the country, important as they are, but the ones that exist in and support urban contexts.

We might feel instinctively that spending time among trees lifts our mood and clears our mind, but the evidence increasingly backs that up. Aviva’s latest “Picture of Health” research, published in September 2025, highlights a growing shift across Britain towards embracing nature as an essential part of maintaining wellbeing. In a survey of 2,000 UK adults, 65% said they actively seek out nature to support their mental health or manage stress, 80% said nature boosts their happiness, and 74% reported a reduction in stress and anxiety after spending time outdoors. The research also found that regularly spending time in nature is linked to higher energy levels, improved concentration and better sleep. After the week some of us have had, I think we would appreciate all those things.

The findings underline an important truth: access to nature is not just a luxury or a lifestyle choice, but a fundamental part of supporting the nation’s health and wellbeing. If more people are turning to green spaces to support their wellbeing, it becomes all the more vital that we protect, create and sustain the natural environments they rely on. Woodlands in particular offer accessible, restorative spaces close to where people live. Investing in their creation and long-term stewardship is therefore not only an environmental priority, but a social one, ensuring that the physical and mental health benefits of nature are accessible to everyone and not just a fortunate few.

Woodland creation must sit at the heart of our national approach to environmental recovery. After 14 years of Conservative drift, England was left with a serious deficit in woodland creation and forest resilience, with tree planting falling to a 20-year low before Labour took office. The Government are turning that around, and planting rates are now at their highest level in more than two decades. More than 7,000 hectares were planted last year, with 10.4 million trees planted in 2024—a 46% increase on the previous year. We are back on track to reach 16.5% of woodland cover by 2050, meeting the Environment Act 2021 target. Backed by £1 billion of investment over this Parliament, it is the largest tree-planting and forestry programme that England has ever seen. The investment supports not only planting but long-term stewardship, skills and apprenticeships, nursery capacity and access to nature.

The announcement of a new national forest across the Oxford-Cambridge arc, where my constituency sits, is fantastic news. I hope the Minister will consider that with reference to the forest of Marston Vale, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson). That would be a fantastic position and is obviously close to Milton Keynes.

Milton Keynes shows what is possible and what has worked. I think I owe such a good start in life to the fact that my city provided so many things for me, up to and including fantastic access to green spaces and nature. I want to ensure that everybody right across the country has that same access. If we are serious about leaving a better environment for future generations, we must continue to invest in woodland creation, tree planting and new forests so that the benefits seen in Milton Keynes today can be enjoyed across the country for decades to come.

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

If Back Benchers could keep their speeches to five minutes, that would be most helpful.

Animal Welfare Strategy for England

Emma Lewell Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Samantha Niblett]

I absolutely join my hon. Friend in praising the Government for putting an end to puppy farming. As we discussed earlier with other concerned colleagues, it is barbaric. So many people who buy from puppy farms have been tricked into doing so. It is absolutely right to put an end to it.

I am proud that the Labour Government passed the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025, which bans the import of dogs and cats under six months old, those that have been declawed or had their ears cropped, and those that are heavily pregnant. However, my constituent Lexi Ireland is vice-chair of Basil’s Forever Sofa, which rescues Romanian dogs and rehomes them in the UK, and she contacted me with concerns that, unless carefully drafted, the legislation could inadvertently prevent legitimate charities from rescuing dogs with cropped ears or docked tails. I wrote to Baroness Hayman, who reassured me that all necessary exemptions will be provided through secondary legislation. I also welcome the Act’s power to prevent the supply to the UK of low-welfare pets, such as stray animals brought back from overseas holidays.

Cats Protection has raised concerns that the strategy does not go far enough in delivering what it describes as

“meaningful protection for cats and kittens”,

particularly around irresponsible breeding, including the breeding of bully cats. It has also called for a single point of search for cat microchipping—I must confess that I assumed that already existed.

I welcome the Government’s decision to reconvene the responsible dog ownership taskforce, which provides an opportunity to reduce dog attacks and improve safety in public areas. Although I believe that the previous Government made the right decision at the time in introducing the XL bully ban, given the tragic loss of life we were seeing, I recognise the heartbreak experienced by responsible pet owners whose well-loved dogs were cherished family members.

I share the Government’s concerns about the welfare implications of e-collars, and I support positive, reward-based training as the preferred approach. Later in this Parliament, we will consult on whether to ban e-collars, following the example already set in Wales.

The Hunting Act 2004 is 20 years old, yet concerns persist about illegal hunting taking place under the guise of trail hunting. I have heard from farmers and landowners who oppose trail hunting due to the land damage but feel under pressure to allow it. Trail hunting was banned on National Trust land in 2022, due to animal welfare concerns, and Forestry England and several local authorities and private estates followed suit, often citing environmental damage. I am glad we are banning it altogether.

I also support the Labour Government’s decision to end the use of snares. A YouGov poll in January 2025 found that 71% of adults in England believe snares should be illegal. I welcome the review of other traps, including those used indoors, while noting concerns raised by the British Pest Control Association that banning smaller traps could increase chemical use, which is a concern more broadly. My constituent Harriet Redfern contacted me after losing her beloved dog, because she believed that non-pet-friendly pesticides were to blame. Others have had similar experiences, including Lisa, who shared her anguish with me during a horse-safety ride that I attended, organised by Councillor Ann Hughes, chair of Overseal parish council.

I welcome the strategy’s commitment to exploring measures to prevent equines from being exported for slaughter, but road safety is an urgent issue in the UK that affects horses and their riders, who are disproportionally women. Mary Holland, who invited me to the horse-safety rides, is part of the Pass Wide and Slow campaign, which calls for better driver education to ensure that horses, riders and motorists are kept safe. I am sure campaigners would welcome provisions on that in future iterations of the animal welfare strategy.

I was struck by something that Sally Barker wrote on my Facebook post when I announced the strategy before Christmas. She said that

“whilst I applaud this, we are quite clearly no longer a nation of animal lovers, if we were, this would not be necessary”.

That is a valid point, and it really made me sad. There will always be awful people who do not treat animals right, so I am glad that our animal welfare strategy seeks to provide protections. It balances compassion with practicality, ambition with partnership and ethics with economic reality. From pets and farm animals to wildlife and working animals, from domestic change to global leadership, the strategy sets a clear direction of travel.

Animal welfare is not a niche issue: it speaks to who we are as a society in the main. I am proud that the Labour Government are rising to the challenge, listening to constituents, working with farmers and experts, and placing animal welfare firmly at the heart of public policy. I look forward to continuing this work and to seeing our commitments translated into a real and lasting change for animals across the UK and beyond.

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

I am immediately imposing a four-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches, so not every Member will get to speak. However, if Members keep their speeches shorter, more people will get in.

Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility

Emma Lewell Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Order. If Members can keep their speeches to five minutes, everyone should get in. I call Will Forster.

Tree Maintenance: Guidance to Local Authorities

Emma Lewell Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

I will call Esther McVey to move the motion. I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of issuing guidance on tree maintenance to local authorities.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. Trees—beautiful, majestic and an enhancement to an area—are one of the most visible aspects of our scenery in the UK, yet their sheer size makes their maintenance essential for public safety. Sadly, on public land, the reality is that this work is seldom done and, as we are about to hear today, can lead to devastating consequences.

Last year, I met with my constituents Fiona and Sam Hall, whose lives were changed forever in August 2020, when Fiona’s husband and Sam’s father Chris Hall was killed by a decayed tree that was known to be dangerous. Chris had left the house for a routine lunchtime dog walk on what was a warm and calm summer’s day. He took that walk in The Carrs in Wilmslow, a local park popular with residents. While on his walk, the limb of a decayed 130-year-old tree of 22 tonnes fell and hit Chris, killing him instantly. Chris was, by all accounts, a life force for good—someone who

“loved life and life loved him.”

His wife Fiona described their passion for simple things—spending their time cooking together and walking their dog. Chris’s son Sam shared how much he missed everything about his father—his laughter, his wisdom and the adventures they shared together. The loss of a loved one is a tragedy by any measure, but Chris’s death was senseless and preventable.

Cheshire East council, responsible for the tree, knew it was unsafe. A year earlier, another limb had fallen off the same tree. Ansa Environmental Services, the council’s contractor responsible for tree maintenance, found the tree had significant structural defects and recommended it be crowned, but nothing was done. The tree was not crowned, and no action was taken to mitigate its risk or warn the public of the dangers that that tree presented.

When the case went to court, it was clear that the responsibility for the incident lay with Cheshire East, and after an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive, the council pleaded guilty to breaching the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and was fined £500,000 in November 2024. The investigation found that since its creation in 2009, Cheshire East council had no formal tree maintenance strategy. The council agreed, following the court case, to develop a tree strategy and partnership with an arborist chosen by the Hall family. The council implemented its tree management strategy in 2021.

However, despite this tragedy, and others we have heard about through the news and in the newspapers of late, there still appears to be a legislative gap, and tree maintenance across the country continues to be ad hoc. Although councillors are required to ensure public safety, there is no statutory duty on them to carry out regular inspections of trees on public land. Regulatory maintenance work is voluntary, and the extent to which councils inspect trees is left to their own discretion. When budgets are tight, maintenance is often the first thing to fall by the wayside. However, maintenance by councils must be a priority—and, in this case, tree maintenance.

To address this, Fiona is now campaigning for Chris’s law, which would require councils to maintain a register of high-risk trees identified by location, species and age, legislating for those trees to be inspected on a regular basis. This is not all trees, but a targeted approach that is manageable for councils and presents a cost-effective solution.

As beautiful as trees are, like us, they have a lifespan and a life expectancy. As they get old, they become sick and weak, can decay and get disease. It is a predictable life cycle. Some examples of common trees in the UK include birches, which tend to live for 50 to 70 years; beeches, 150 to 200 years; and oaks and sycamores, which can last for 200 to 300 years. But they all have a life expectancy. Therefore, it is safe to say that after a certain age, trees need to be inspected.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Lewell Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)]

1. What steps he is taking to consult the public on reforms to the water sector.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)]

4. What steps he is taking to consult the public on reforms to the water sector.

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

I start by acknowledging, on VE Day, the debt that we all owe to that great generation who sacrificed so much for our freedom. We will remember them and their sacrifice forever.

The Independent Water Commission, led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, will make recommendations to transform our water system and clean up our waterways. The recommendations will form the basis of further legislation to fix our broken water system. A public call for evidence that ran for eight weeks and closed on 23 April received a very high number of responses. Those will be shared in detail when the commission publishes its recommendations. Sir Jon and the commission have held more than 130 meetings, including with regulators, environmental groups, campaigners, investors, water companies and consumer bodies. Engagement will continue ahead of the commission’s recommendations to the Government in a few weeks.

[Emma Lewell]

I echo the Secretary of State’s initial comments. South Shields has a long-standing problem with sewage being dumped in the sea at Whitburn. Just this week, Little Haven beach was handed a brown flag, and myself and local campaigners are completely fed up. The Environment Agency, Ofwat, Northumbrian Water, the council and the last Government all completely ignored our concerns. We have already requested a meeting with the Water Minister, and I hope she will confirm today that the meeting will happen very soon.

[Steve Reed]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her tireless work to represent the concerns of people in South Shields about those terrible problems with water pollution. Of course, my hon. Friend voted for the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which has given the regulator many more powers, including the power to ban undeserved multimillion-pound bonuses. I am sure she will be interested to read, as will I, the findings from the Independent Water Commission led by Sir Jon Cunliffe when they come forward in a few weeks’ time.

Waste Incinerators

Emma Lewell Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

I note that Mr Barclay has removed his jacket, so others are permitted to do so if they wish.

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered waste incinerators.

I declare my interest as a Derby city councillor of almost 17 years and a former leader of the council. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.

I pay tribute to the amazing residents of Sinfin, Osmaston and Normanton; I have campaigned with them against an incinerator in our community for the past 16 years. I promised them that I would take this fight to Parliament, and that is exactly what I plan to do today.

Many present will be all too familiar with stories like that of Sinfin—and worse. It is a story of broken promises and good money thrown after bad. At its heart is a community that has suffered the consequences of poor planning, poor management, poor decision making, and a lack of transparency and scrutiny. Residents have lived in continuous anxiety and fear that the incineration plant in Sinfin will become operational. They have endured a protracted planning process, with the incinerator eventually being approved only on a technicality following a High Court ruling. They are rightly concerned about the impact that the incinerator would have on their health, local environment and quality of life.

Unfortunately, so much of the story is not unique to Sinfin or Derby. Incinerators loom large over so many communities across the UK, so we are here to say that incinerators do not have a place near schools, people’s homes, allotments, elderly residents, or spaces where our children grow up and play. We are here to say that enough is enough. Incinerators must be kept to a minimum, especially when they impact local communities.

I recognise that waste must be disposed of responsibly, and we have to accept that some incinerators will be needed to achieve that, but they must be safe, be appropriately located, use proven technology and be kept to a minimum. We do not need local plants that impact the lives of local people in local areas. For the sake of our communities and environment, we must also take bold steps towards increased recycling rates and a circular economy. When we talk about waste disposal, we are also talking about the future that we want to create for our children and grandchildren.

It is important to highlight what it is like to live next to an incinerator. Nobody wants to live next to noise pollution from a constant stream of heavy goods vehicles, deal with a fly infestation because waste is being left on site, or worry about their health and their children’s health because their next door neighbour is an incinerator that is leaking sulphuric acid and damaging air quality. All those are lived experiences from the plant in Sinfin, which has never operated for a single day, and which failed during commissioning.

It is not just the experiences of impacted residents—the statistics on incinerators speak for themselves, loud and clear. BBC analysis has found that burning household waste in incinerators to make electricity is now the dirtiest way that the UK generates power.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members who wish to speak to make sure that they bob. I am putting a limit of four and a half minutes on all Back-Bench speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

In law, as I understand it, it is for local planning authorities to decide on planning applications. The hon. Gentleman will be surprised to hear that I have not memorised the full 60 pages—I do my best, but I am just not that good. I am very happy to write to him about the Cambridgeshire point, but he can see it online.

The consultation proposed aligning the ETS with the extended producer responsibility for packaging to allow local councils to pass the emission trading costs from the incineration of plastic packaging waste to the producers of plastic packaging. It also sought views on how best to support local authorities in managing ETS costs.

It is not for the Environment Agency to decide where an energy-from-waste plant is built, or whether it is the right solution for treating waste. It can revoke environmental permits only where there is clear evidence of ongoing non-compliance.

I have discussed simpler recycling, and we heard some excellent examples from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) about food waste, including Too Good To Go. The Government have set up a £15 million food waste grant to tackle on-farm food surplus.

We have also set up the circular economy taskforce, bringing together experts from the Government, industry, academia and civil society. It will work with businesses on what they want to see to create the best possible conditions for investment. We are developing a new circular economy strategy for England, which will mean an economy-wide transformation in our relationship with our precious materials. It will kick-start the Government’s missions to have economic growth, to make us a clean energy superpower and to accelerate the transition to net zero. Through our efforts to tackle waste crime, of which there is a great deal in the waste sector, we will take back our streets.

On our capacity announcement, we know there is a need to minimise waste incineration, but it is still a better option than throwing rubbish into landfill. Energy-from-waste facilities provide around 3% of the UK’s total energy generation. They can support the decarbonisation of heating our homes and businesses, helping to cut customers’ bills. Energy from waste can both maximise the value of resources that have reached the true end of life and avoid the greater environmental impact of landfill, which creates its own problems.

I will conclude to give my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South time to respond. I encourage investors, financiers and businesses to invest in infrastructure that supports the movement of resources up the waste hierarchy. Our recycling infrastructure capacity analysis, published in partnership with the Waste and Resources Action Programme, alongside our packaging reforms identified forecast capacity investment opportunities of 1.7 million tonnes a year for paper packaging reprocessing and 324,000 tonnes a year for plastic packaging reprocessing by 2035.

We want to unlock investment, and last week my officials met the Lord Mayor of London, Dutch officials and members of the UK and Dutch financial sectors to agree to form a circular economy finance coalition to boost investment in the transition to the circular economy to which we are committed. That is no small task, but by working together we will keep our resources in use for longer.

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Baggy Shanker, you have one minute to wind up.

Thames Water: Government Support

Emma Lewell Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

I thank all hon. Members who were eagle-eyed enough to spot that my name has changed. The nameplate in front of me is correct and accurate.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for Thames Water.

It is again a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting me this important and extremely topical debate. I also thank hon. Members from across the House for joining me this afternoon. I hope that we are all of the same opinion on the problem, although we might well differ slightly on the solution.

Sixteen million Britons are gaslit daily by Thames Water. The company has unleashed filth in our waterways and homes, while cutting deeper and deeper into our personal finances. When I think about the performance of Thames Water, I imagine the very excrement it fails to manage. Despite all the years of historic under-investment in favour of profit, the business has been run into the ground. It now finds itself on the brink of collapse, counting down its days of cash remaining, as we all saw in the recent documentary. It makes an absolute mockery of the water utility industry that fat-cat shareholders are enjoying obscene payouts and company executives rake in sky-high salaries and bonuses, all while our rivers and our wallets suffer. River ecosystems are dying, and our children are denied the joy of swimming in nature because of the threat of swallowing human waste.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Maynard]

None of the 60 amendments in the Commons, or however many there were, was accepted. The rejected proposals included putting flow meters on the outflows of sewage treatment works, which is sort of logical; establishing targets to reduce pollution over time, using existing benchmarks of hours of spilled sewage; making sewage treatment works’ calculations more transparent; and bringing environmental experts and consumer representatives on to water boards.

The Labour Government are now allowing a public utility company to line the pockets of bankers and hedge funds at the expense of bill payers. As someone said in the Financial Times this week,

“with water, it’s a total monopoly and a total shambles. A shambopoly if you will”.

The Government’s support for Thames Water essentially amounts to unconditional support for the company’s creditors, at a direct and massive cost to its customers.

What do we need to do instead? First, we need to put the company out of its financial misery and put it into special administration. We should allow its debt to be massively written down to something like three times the cash flow or thereabouts. If the debt is reduced, the company will have a sufficiently strong balance sheet to allow it to invest in the infrastructure we desperately need and to spend our bill payments on fixing treatment works and pipe networks, rather than paying interest. We should allow water companies coming out of special administration to be mutually owned by their customers and professionally managed. We should set pollution baselines and pollution reduction targets and get serious about putting transparency targets and technology to work to clean up our rivers.

Special administration is clearly the most logical option at the moment, but I believe that the Government are shying away from it because of threats of legal action against them, phantasmagorical scenarios of financial Armageddon, or both. Please do not let Thames Water’s lobbyists, including Ruth Kelly, the ex-Labour Minister who is now chair of Water UK, to scaremonger you out of taking the action that 16 million consumers—your electorate—need. Those scenarios are patently not true, and it is best to ask Thames Water about that. As per page 92 of the independent expert report from Thames Water’s adviser, Teneo, the net cost to the Treasury of taking the company into special administration, even in the worst-case scenario, is zero—please look it up.

Instead, we now have this bizarre situation whereby a Labour Government are cheerleading the American hedge funds and private equity funds taking over our largest water company and making a massive profit out of its customers. What goes for Thames Water will very likely go for the rest of the sector, so the signal that you and your Government are sending the sector—

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Order. I do not wish to spoil the hon. Gentleman’s flow, but we use the same conventions in Westminster Hall as in the main Chamber. You should not use the words “you” or “your” unless you are referring to me.

[Charlie Maynard]

Many apologies to you, Ms Lewell, and to the Minister.

The signal that the Minister and the Government are sending to this and other regulated sectors is simply terrible. All that customers in my Witney constituency and across the whole catchment really want at this point is reliable, affordable, clean water to our homes. We want local rivers and lakes not to have sewage poured into them on a near-daily basis. We want a Government who are serious about putting the interests of customers and our rivers before the interests of hedge funds and private equity funds. Please stop letting us down.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Lewell Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2023 Commons Chamber

The Attorney General was asked—

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

1. What steps she is taking to help ensure the effective prosecution of perpetrators of fraud and economic crime.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

4. What steps she is taking to help ensure effective prosecution of perpetrators of fraud and economic crime.

[The Solicitor General (Michael Tomlinson)]

The Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office play a critical role in bringing economic criminals to justice. Just yesterday, the SFO announced a new investigation into fraud at AOG Technics Ltd, an aircraft parts supplier. That is the third new investigation launched since Nick Ephgrave became director of the SFO.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Members of the Conservative party used the pandemic as an opportunity to make money for their friends and donors totalling £3.5 billion. When will they face justice?

[The Solicitor General]

I completely refute what the hon. Lady has said. I was looking forward to her question, but I was disappointed with the tone and substance of it. It is right to say that this Government are taking economic crime seriously, and fraud as well. I hope she has seen the new fraud strategy and, importantly, the report commissioned from Jonathan Fisher KC and his review on disclosure, which is due out next summer.

Combined Sewer Overflows

Emma Lewell Excerpts

Wednesday 13th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

Unlimited penalties are available to the Environment Agency and there is already a criminal investigation under way. I know my hon. Friend has secured a Westminster Hall debate next week to discuss it in further detail, and my hon. Friend the water Minister will reply substantially to the many detailed points that I am sure he will raise.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

It was my constituent Mr Latimer who was responsible for the law change stating that sewage should only be discharged during exceptional circumstances. He knows, as we all know, that it is this Government who are actively enabling the water companies and regulators to get away with dumping sewage into our rivers and our oceans. Why will the Secretary of State not admit that under this Government, sewage dumping is no longer the exception but the rule?

[Dr Coffey]

Because the hon. Lady’s assertion is simply not true.

Sewage Pollution

Emma Lewell Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. We are mindful of the impacts on bills. The average increase in bills with the measures we outlined—the £56 billion package—will be about £12 per household per year by around 2030. However, we have said that we will review this in 2027, and if it is possible to accelerate more of that investment, we will do so and the Government at that time can consider that position. I repeat that it is not the case that nothing is happening until 2035; indeed, we are spending more than £3 billion out to 2025, which will lead to a 25% reduction.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

I have repeatedly raised the issue of sewage dumping on the beach in my constituency in this Chamber. The Government continually use the excuse that it would cost up to £660 billion to upgrade our sewers, but the actual cost, over 10 years, would be £21.7 billion. Since privatisation, £72 billion has been paid out in dividends, so why are the Government not making the water companies meet these costs?

[George Eustice]

We also published and laid before the House yesterday a report required under the Act on the feasibility of removing the storm overflows altogether. It is the case that the cost of completely removing them, as the hon. Lady would like, is up to about £600 billion. Reducing their use so that they are not used in an average year would, in itself, be in the region of £200 billion. We have chosen to spend £56 billion, a significant investment, to target the most harmful sewer discharges, and that will lead to significant change in the years ahead.