Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

Water quality and sewage pollution is one of the most pressing issues in my constituency. In the past year alone, we have had 57 sewage dumps—the equivalent of 594 hours of sewage spilled—at Bournemouth pier. As many Members will know, Bournemouth pier is a place where people surf, paddleboard, swim and walk their dogs. It is a magnet for tourism. This is more than just an environmental issue; it is a public health issue, with people frequently getting sick from swimming in the sea. It also has massive economic consequences for my constituency, which thousands of people visit over the summer. It is impacting our reputation, our businesses and our tourism industry. However, it is also a matter of deep pride for my constituents. We are proud to be one of the most beautiful bits of coastline in the UK—we are often ranked in the top 20 in Europe. My constituents want to enjoy those coastal waters, not be afraid to go in them. It is a situation that cannot be allowed to continue.

I am truly glad the Conservatives have found some vim on this issue, but I gently remind them that we did not come to power in a vacuum. We are facing a Victorian situation with the amount of sewage, and that comes from a failure to deal with systemic issues. [Interruption.] Despite their protestations, the Conservatives’ actions have spoken louder than their words. Under the previous Government, we heard talk of scrapping nutrient neutrality, and they slashed the Environment Agency’s budget, with the then water Minister instructing the Environment Agency not to publish data. We have heard all about the increase in monitoring, but if they knew so much about the problem, why did they not do anything about it? It is a little too late for that. It is Labour that is bringing forward the legislation to deal with this issue.

I am proud to support this Bill, with its provisions for criminal liability and banning bonuses. The amendments the Minister has outlined today, in particular to improve transparency, give industry certainty and speed up the implementation of these measures, are so important.

I end by saying that my constituents will welcome the actions taken by the Labour Government. We owe it to them and to the next generation to leave this country with seas, rivers and an environment that are protected and thriving.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

I welcome the Bill. While its provisions are modest, I none the less welcome this step to improve on the failures of previous Conservative Governments on sewage pollution.

For too long, water companies have been allowed to operate without proper regulation and oversight. Since privatisation, English water companies have paid out £83 billion in dividends while amassing £74 billion in debt. Shockingly, with the Bill still making its way through the House, water companies have brazenly said that they plan to circumvent the ban on bonuses by jacking up C-suite salaries to compensate. The Bill must do more and be more ambitious to truly hold water companies to account. I am therefore pleased to support the new clauses in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), which would strengthen the Bill, improving monitoring, protecting consumers and ensuring responsibility falls on sewerage companies to clean up their act.

I will speak to amendment 9 and new clauses 11 and 21. Amendment 9 would ensure that creditors, not bill payers, pay for the bail-out of water companies in special measures. It would protect consumers against the reckless financial mismanagement of Thames Water. Ordinary bill payers should not be required to pay for the mistakes of a company they had no choice to use and the folly of investors that indulged it.

New clause 11 would require sewerage undertakers to install volume flow meters in all their locations where overflows occur. Campaign organisations in my constituency, including the famous Henley Mermaids, tell me that flow meters would help to inform them when it is safe to go in the water.

New clause 21 is also of special importance to my constituency, much of which is in the Chilterns national landscape. It would commit sewerage undertakers to secure and then maintain high ecological status in protected landscapes. It would require them to improve outflow from storm overflows in areas such as Goring, in my constituency, which lies within the Chilterns national landscape. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) would very much welcome that, as we both enjoyed stand-up paddleboard yoga in Goring in July.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman paints a beautiful picture. How much does he think it would cost to implement and how much would that cost impact on bill payers?

[Freddie van Mierlo]

The measures we propose should be taken in the round. All our amendments significantly improve the Bill.

New clause 21 would also improve sewage outflow in Henley-on-Thames and the villages along the Thames Path national trail. That is desperately needed to end the shame of welcoming the world to our beautiful town of Henley at the royal regatta, only to subject it to what we put down the toilet.

In conclusion, I welcome the Bill and the protections it will deliver to my constituents, but I hope the Government will consider going further very soon.

[Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for all the hard work she and her team have been doing on the Bill. It is very important to my constituents.

To go back to the very basics, we are talking about something that everybody in North East Derbyshire uses every day—water. I believe that everybody in my constituency, and in the whole country, has a right to know that the water in our rivers and streams is clean, clear and free from pollution. The reason I have to state that now in this House is that we have not had the action we should have had over the past 14 years. That is a huge failure of the previous Government to get action taken and completed on this important issue. Instead, in 2023 water was polluted over 2,000 times in North East Derbyshire—and that is in just one constituency.

Last week, I met local residents in Ashover, which is situated on the River Amber, in my constituency. They impressed on me their concerns about pollution in that very picturesque part of the river. We have had good news, in that Severn Trent Water has improved treatment tank capacity in the area, but my residents are worried that that will not be enough, and indeed that we will not know whether it is enough. They are already concerned that the water they see does not live up to the standards they wish to see. That is why I particularly welcome the fact that the Bill is bringing in independent monitoring of water quality. I am afraid I disagree with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). What I think is important is not that we get carried away with volume, but the impact on water quality. That is what matters most.

Climate and Nature Bill

Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie]

Absolutely. That is one reason why I am so proud of the contracts for difference scheme, which over our time in government supported emerging and developing technologies to ensure that we get the transition right to the tune of billions of pounds.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman spoke of the need to focus on the provisions of the Bill, so will he outline which provisions he is opposed to? Is it net zero ambitions, increasing net biodiversity, or developing a nature and biodiversity plan?

[Andrew Bowie]

If the hon. Gentleman would have some patience, I am about to turn to the exact provisions that we take issue with.

The Bill states that it is

“to require the United Kingdom to achieve climate and nature targets”

and it calls for an immediate end to exploration, extraction and—crucially—imports of fossil fuels. That would involve not only laying off hundreds of thousands of workers and undermining our energy security, but shutting down our chemicals industry and putting at risk our ability to keep the lights on. The Bill would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to publish annual targets and bind the Secretary of State to take to take “all reasonable steps” to achieve them. As we have seen, setting arbitrary legally binding targets with no plan for how to achieve them is a mistake.

The Bill would also establish a climate and nature assembly to direct the Secretary of State’s strategy—a body that the Secretary of State would be legally bound to follow if any of the measures it proposed had the support of 66% of its members. Those members would be unelected and unaccountable, unlike Members of this House. That is not how decisions are made in this country, and it is not how decisions should be made. Laws and decisions are taken in this country by this Parliament, and are introduced mostly by the Government, who command a majority in this House. The Government are held to account in this House by elected Members, and we in turn are held to account by our constituents. We cannot outsource our responsibilities to an unelected, unaccountable and remote institution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

I agree in part with my hon. Friend—indeed, the committee has neglected some of its responsibilities—but I want to make progress on the Bill, which does not address the Climate Change Committee.

Clause 1 would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to achieve the climate and nature objectives that it sets out, as if mere will alone could bring those objectives into reality. One objective is that the UK

“reduces its overall contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions to net zero at a rate consistent with…achieving its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) emissions reduction targets”

in accordance with the 2015 Paris agreement. That would entail reducing UK emissions in line with the 1.5° objective.

Clause 2 explains that the strategy that the Secretary of State would be duty-bound to produce and then take every possible step to achieve

“must include measures that…will achieve the objectives specified”

by

“limiting the United Kingdom’s total emissions of carbon dioxide, including territorial emissions”

to levels in line with the Paris agreement’s 1.5° objective. What does that mean? The Bill stops short of providing year-on-year limits for overall emissions, but does not indicate that our current carbon budget system is not sufficient for the objectives of the Bill.

Zero Hour, the climate campaign group behind the Bill, thinks that the UK’s carbon budgets are no longer sufficient to achieve 1.5° and that, once we include emissions from the goods we import, the UK’s total carbon footprint will exceed its share of the global carbon budget for a 67% chance of 1.5° by more than a factor of two.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew Bowie]

I will not. I have given way a few times and other Members want to speak, so I want to make some progress.

Aligning to the targets, which the Bill would oblige the Secretary of State to achieve, would require even more drastic action to reduce emissions. The Secretary of State has already signed the country up to an even stricter target of cutting emissions by 81% by 2035—something the Climate Change Committee said will require people to eat less meat and dairy, take fewer flights, and swap their boilers for heat pumps and their petrol cars for electric vehicles at a pace that will require taxes and mandation. That is not sensible, nor is it feasible.

Let us turn to the objective to include import emissions in the scope of our carbon budgets. Zero Hour correctly identifies that the current carbon budget system focuses on territorial emissions, rather than consumption emissions—in other words, we count the carbon emissions of what is produced within our own borders, rather than the carbon emissions of products that are produced overseas, shipped in and then used within the UK. Some may think that underplays our true contribution to global emissions, and they may have a point, because if we shut down our oil and gas sector, for example—as the Labour party seemingly wants to do—that will not mean that we consume any less oil or gas; it will just mean that we ship it in from overseas as liquefied natural gas, which has four times the carbon emissions in the production process. We may have reduced our territorial carbon emissions and stuck to our carbon budgets, but we would actually be increasing our carbon emissions overall. That, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) likes to say, is carbon accounting gone mad.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and she is right that we are investing more than ever in flood defences. I am now going to make a bit of progress.

We know that we are living through an age of extinction, and that damaged ecosystems are less able to absorb the emissions that we continue to create. Last year was not just the hottest year on record, but the first to record an average global temperature above the internationally agreed 1.5°C threshold.

From the Valencia floods to the Florida hurricanes, from typhoons in the Philippines to droughts and wildfires in the Amazon, and of course the devastating wildfires that have left thousands under mandatory evacuation orders in Los Angeles, we saw extreme weather exacerbated by climate change last year. Dr Friederike Otto of Imperial College London called 2024 a “reality check” and said that it

“showed just how dangerous life is at 1.5C.”

This is not somebody else’s problem; this is not our children’s problem—this is our problem. As our Prime Minister has said, climate change knows no borders. It threatens national security and economic stability. Our mission is to end poverty on a liveable planet, so the days of sticking our head in the sand and betraying future generations are over. We are changing course.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

Many hon. Members have spoken ably of the importance of rivers and waterways and the nature contained within them. Will the Minister continue to work on that issue and address the shameful legacy of the Tories?

[Mary Creagh]

I am going to speak at great length on flooding and water and the measures we have already taken—I have several pages on that.

Let me say what this mission-driven Government are all about. We know one of our missions is to make the UK a clean energy superpower, including accelerating to net zero emissions while seizing the economic opportunities that come with that. We are back in the business of climate leadership and will restore the UK’s position as a global leader on climate action, delivering at home and working abroad with our international partners.

Public Services: Rural Areas

Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Smith]

Yes, I wholeheartedly associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour. Last Friday, I was in the village of Chatton, which is near the border between our two constituencies, to speak to a group focused on autism and special educational needs. There was palpable frustration in that room among 30 parents and carers who are simply unable to get the support they need from the county council, despite the additional funding. I believe that he and I can work on that together.

Let me move on to my third and fourth points, which relate to healthcare. Until schools improve, and until transport becomes more reliable, healthcare professionals will not move to rural areas. For Berwick to have an accident and emergency department, and for North Northumberland to have genuinely local primary care, we must incentivise doctors and nurses to move, with their families, into our neighbourhoods. Until they do, rural healthcare will continue to suffer.

Some 25% of rural residents are aged 65 or over, and in North Northumberland the average age is 54, but rural councils receive 14% less grant funding for social care services and 58% less for public health. Dental care provision is also extremely sparse. It is estimated that a 1,500 sq km region of North Northumberland has no NHS dentist. Imagine someone living alone in Wooler or Rothbury—miles from the nearest NHS dentist—whose tooth starts to twinge.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

On healthcare provision in rural areas, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a desperate need to review GPs’ core contracts, so that we better incentivise GPs to set up in rural areas? Would he also agree that, in areas where the ongoing need for a GP surgery is clear, integrated care boards have a role in managing that estate so it can be secure over a long period?

[David Smith]

Yes, we need to do everything in our power to encourage healthcare professionals, including GPs, to move into rural areas, where they can have a fantastic quality of life. I think there is a role for ICBs. I am pleased to see that, in my part of the world, 25% of GP surgeries in the Northumbria healthcare NHS foundation trust are working directly as a part of the trust. We should look at any option that can draw additional healthcare resource, especially people, into rural areas.

We need to rethink how we do rural care and primary care. In Orkney, for instance, I am reliably told that doctors practise in rotating shifts—one week on, eight weeks off—and pursue other work. It is certainly an unusual solution, but to provide rural residents with quality care, we may need to think and work creatively together. I welcome the Government’s work and funding to incentivise GPs to see more patients, as well as more of the same patients, and the promise to introduce 700,000 more urgent dental appointments.

That leads me to the last of the four points I would like to make.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith). I understand that this is his first Adjournment debate, and I have to tell him that they cannot always run for as long as this—but what a brilliant debate we have had, and how splendidly he made the case for the countryside, which has been echoed in the excellent speeches from other colleagues. Let me respond briefly to some of them before turning to his main points.

I will not go into the details of the incident in Lichfield because I suspect, and hope, that a criminal case may result from it. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) described it as not just fly-tipping but a serious example of industrialised rural crime, and it is right to put on record the grief that has been caused to local residents and businesses. My hon. Friend and his constituents have my absolute sympathy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) characteristically and elegantly name-checked many of his local businesses, beauty spots and hostelries, but also mentioned parish councils, an extremely important level of local governance with which we need to work closely. I assure him that when it comes to supporting buying British, this Government are entirely in line with his wishes and the wishes of the country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock) raised a series of important points about community initiatives. Community land trusts are always important for promoting housing. I liked his points about rural transport very much, and I will say a bit more about that later. He also mentioned community solar initiatives, which showed just what can be done in rural areas with that kind of leadership and passion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) was right to refer to the aspirations of people in rural areas. There is a 19% productivity gap between the rural economy and the national average, but what an opportunity there is for us and for people in rural areas to show just how important we can be. I will deal with his point about transport in a moment.

The Government are absolutely committed to improving the quality of life for everyone living and working in rural areas, so that we can make a real impact on their everyday lives and realise the potential to which I have referred. Given that part of my job title is “Minister for Rural Affairs”, it is my job to make sure that these matters are at the very heart of policymaking. As Members have said, it is a structural Government challenge to ensure that rural issues are taken up, and I am delighted that there are so many passionate voices on these Benches because it will make my job easier.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

National trails, which run through much of the countryside, provide vital access to the countryside both for people coming out of urban areas and for people living in rural areas, but the amount of funding for National Trails UK has not risen since 2012, and stands at just £1.7 million a year. Will the Minister commit himself to looking at that again and seeing what we can do to help out our friends at National Trails UK?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for trying to lure me into an unfunded spending commitment. I assure him we do not do that on this side of the House, but he has made an important point, and I will of course look at it.

The Government have wasted no time in getting to work on a whole range of issues that affect both urban and rural areas. In order to pursue our growth mission, we have announced a series of planning reforms to get Britain building, removed the de facto ban on onshore wind, established a national wealth fund, announced a pensions review to unlock growth, boosted investment, delivered savings for pensioners, launched Skills England, announced a White Paper on getting Britain working, and taken the first steps to create Great British Energy. All of those measures provide opportunities for people in rural areas, and all sectors can shape and benefit from wider policy reform through the growth mission, which will create the conditions for businesses to invest and employ, and for consumers to spend with confidence. However, we absolutely recognise the specific challenges and opportunities.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but I do not share his pessimism. There are real opportunities, but it is up to us to make sure that they are realised. He makes an important point.

The Government absolutely recognise that there are specific challenges and opportunities that make rural communities and economies distinctive, and we acknowledge the need for direct support through programmes such as the rural England prosperity fund, which provides targeted support to rural businesses and communities. We recognise that community-owned businesses play a particularly important role in rural areas by providing opportunities for communities to come together and access services, but we also recognise that there are significant challenges facing rural community businesses and that the Government have a role to play in overcoming them.

A number of my hon. Friends have talked about rural transport, which is key to those living and working in rural communities. We know that a prosperous rural economy requires improvements in rural transport and, of course, digital infrastructure. The availability of affordable housing is key, as are affordable energy and access to a healthy and skilled workforce, so a complex mix is required to get the growth that we so want to see.

We also recognise that the need for rural residents to travel further to access work, education and training, and essential services such as healthcare raises additional challenges. We know that it can be more costly and time consuming for them, and we recognise their frustrations. I was struck by the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland about what happens when services are withdrawn. We know all too well the problems that that creates for our constituents, so this Government are determined to deliver better bus services. We have set out a plan to achieve that in our Bus Services Bill, which will give local leaders the tools they need to ensure that bus services reflect the needs of the communities they serve.

My hon. Friend was absolutely right to raise the issue of digital access, particularly for those in ultra-rural areas. Digitisation is at the heart of this Government’s agenda, and we are committed to ensuring that rural communities and businesses are not left behind or disadvantaged. Through the shared rural network, which has helped to deliver 4G mobile coverage to 95% of the UK a year ahead of target, we will continue to deliver 4G connectivity to places where there is either limited coverage or none at all.

However, we are aware that rural parts of the UK still lag behind when it comes to mobile coverage, and we will continue to work with the industry to deliver new coverage to such communities via the shared rural network, enabling them to thrive. Our ambition is to go further and for all populated areas to have higher-quality stand-alone 5G access by 2030. Project Gigabit is the Government’s programme to deliver gigabit-capable broadband to UK premises, many of which are situated in rural communities that are not included in suppliers’ commercial plans.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

Some villages, including Ewelme in my constituency, successfully signed up to the previous voucher scheme but were then excluded from Project Gigabit as a result. The previous Government failed to deliver on the scheme, which meant that such villages were left with no internet at all or no fast broadband. Will the Minister commit to looking specifically at the village of Ewelme to see what he can do to include it in Project Gigabit?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I will certainly ask my officials to get in touch with the hon. Gentleman so that we can get him an answer on that specific question. Sadly, only 85% of UK premises can access gigabit-capable broadband at the moment. Our goal is for nationwide gigabit coverage by 2030, ensuring that at least 99% of UK premises can access a gigabit-capable connection.

Turning to rural housing, access to genuinely affordable homes is essential to sustaining vibrant rural communities, and the housing shortage drives high rents and leaves some of the most vulnerable without access to a safe and secure home. We will reform planning laws so that we can build the homes that our rural communities desperately need while ensuring that we protect our green spaces and the natural environment. As part of that, the Government recently ran a consultation to reform the national planning policy framework, and we will carefully consider how best to build more homes and introduce a wider set of growth-focused interventions that will help us build those homes in the places where people want to live and, importantly, that are supported by the right infrastructure and services.

Chalk Streams: Sewage Discharge

Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Victoria Collins]

Absolutely. As my hon. Friend says, chalk streams are extremely rare. There are almost 200 in the world—not many at all. As for regulating our water, Ofwat simply is not fit for purpose, and we ask the Minister to replace it with a new clean water authority that takes relevant powers from the Environment Agency. We ask her to strengthen the regulatory powers and resources and set legally binding targets to prevent sewage discharge in our highly sensitive nature sites.

The clean water authority should have the power to revoke the licence of poorly performing water companies swiftly, fine top executives of water companies and initiate prosecution. It should increase water monitoring with new sewage inspectors, including unannounced inspections, with the aim of ending the self-monitoring of water companies. When it comes to water companies, we must hold them to account and reform the way in which they work. We must ask for meaningful targets and deadlines to be set for water companies to end sewage discharges, with local environmental experts on water company boards. Water companies should publish 25-year investment plans to encourage sound investment and promote the use of nature-based solutions.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

My constituency suffered quite considerably from flooding in the past month. One reason is that chalk streams can be over-engineered, culverted and canalised through villages. Nature-based solutions offer a really good solution to improve the flow of rivers. Does my hon. Friend agree with me on that point?

[Victoria Collins]

Absolutely. We must also see a ban on bonuses for water company executives until sewage spills end and leaks are fixed. Ultimately, we need to transform water companies into public benefit companies.

Our precious chalk streams are of rare, global ecological importance and the backdrop to our towns, villages and daily lives. We must protect them for our future generations and for today’s generation. We cannot squander the opportunity to protect them under our watch.

Oral Answers to Questions

Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

We are in the early stages of looking at how we deal with the country’s waste and considering the policies we will bring forward. This will be looked at as part of the review. We will be working with colleagues from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to ensure we get the right results.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

Will the Secretary of State meet me and the Environment Agency to discuss the closure of Marsh Lock bridge on the Thames path in Henley-on-Thames?

[Emma Hardy]

I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and the Environment Agency to discuss the matter in more detail.