Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Gareth Snell Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

There is a process by which any company would go into administration. That situation has not yet arisen with any company. The Government are, of course, closely monitoring the situation with Thames Water, but as things stand the company remains viable and I reassure consumers in that area that there is no threat, and would be no threat, to water supply in any circumstance.

The Government have a three-stage plan to deliver change and bring in the biggest ever investment in our water sector. That started with the initial reforms I announced in the week following the general election. It continues with the Bill before the House today. It will be completed with the water commission, led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, and further legislation that will follow on from that.

In my first week as Environment Secretary, I met water company chief executives and announced a set of immediate reforms to start the process of change. Money earmarked for investment to upgrade water infrastructure will now be ringfenced, so it cannot be diverted for other purposes, including paying bonuses or dividends. If it is not spent on what it was intended for, it will be refunded back to customers as discounts on their bills. Water companies agreed to formally change their company objectives to place customers and the environment at the heart of everything they do. They will set up powerful new customer panels to scrutinise key decisions. Customers who face frequent water outages—like the constituents my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) talked about—or contaminated tap water, as residents and businesses experienced in Brixham in Devon, will now receive more generous compensation and they will get it faster.

We promised in our manifesto to put water companies under special measures to clean up our water. The core provisions of the Bill do precisely that by strengthening the powers of the regulators and holding water companies to account for poor performance.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State rightly talks about the role that regulators have to play, whether that is Ofwat or the Environment Agency. While the water companies were getting away with what they were doing, the Conservative party took huge amounts of money out of the EA. Independent figures from Unchecked UK suggest an 88% reduction in enforcement activities, and that a 50% reduction in the environmental protection budget led to a 60% reduction in activity. Will he set out more on how regulators will be key to clearing up our water industry?

[Steve Reed]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes some extremely important points. In my speech, I will be coming on to how we intend to ensure the regulator not only has additional powers but additional resources to enforce those powers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

I welcome the opportunity to debate the vital issue of water and how this Bill may be improved. The Secretary of State will be relieved to hear that I intend to focus on water quality tonight, rather than his selling of farmers, fishermen and family businesses down the river—we dealt with that this afternoon at the London Palladium summit.

Across the House, we agree that there are fundamental problems facing the water and sewerage industry that span decades. While we enjoy high-quality drinking water across the UK, there are, sadly, some streams, rivers and beaches where sewage is discharged with disgusting results, chiefly because our Victorian-era sewerage system cannot cope with a larger population and increasingly volatile weather. We Conservatives recognised that when we entered government in 2010 and started the enormous and decades-long task of turning things around.

[Gareth Snell]

And how is that going?

[Victoria Atkins]

I will come on that, and the hon. Gentleman will regret asking that question.

I am going to set out our record on water, because it is important that this Government act on the facts rather than believing their own rhetoric—as was demonstrated, sadly, by the shameful betrayal of farming and family businesses in Labour’s Budget of broken promises.

Since 2010, the number of designated bathing waters has increased. We have seen a significant improvement in water quality ratings, with more waters rated as “excellent” or “good”, and an increase in blue flag beaches. I gently point out that England performs better than other parts of the UK when it comes to leaks, drinking water quality and bathing water quality. I understand why Labour Members—including the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah), who is no longer in her place—have raised the issue of dividends, but it is an inconvenient fact that over 65% of dividends were paid out during the New Labour Government era, with a decline over the 14 years that we were in government.

There is more to be done, which is precisely why we want to help the Government to improve their piece of legislation. It is also why the work of the last decade must be seen as part of this giant infrastructure project. We were the first Government in history to set out that storm overflows must be reduced. To do that, storm overflows had to be monitored and measured. I have to say that I was surprised that the Secretary of State was so dismissive of the need to monitor. As a Home Office Minister, I was painfully aware that we needed to monitor, for example, reports of sexual violence against women, because once it is measured, we can manage it.

It is surprising that the Secretary of State does not appear to think that monitoring storm overflows matters. The reason why is that the previous Labour Government monitored just 7% of storm overflows in 2010. He cannot say that there are more overflows than ever before, because the previous Labour Government did not measure them. The fact that we increased monitoring to 100% of storm overflows means that we know the frequency and have been able to build a body of work on top of that. [Interruption.] He asks what we have done as a result, and I am very happy to help him with that. The data has empowered enraged residents to demand that their local streams, rivers and beaches be cleaned up. It is a critical part of the decades-long work on our water systems that is required, but we were not content with maximising monitoring. The data must be used—

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to support the Bill because we basically live in a monopoly. We live in a situation where a group of companies control an incredibly essential part of everyday life—a part that we need. As a consumer, if I do not like the service I receive, I can go somewhere else; I cannot do that with water. If I want to shop around for a better deal, I can do that; I cannot do that with water. The water companies know that—they know that they hold a monopoly on the service they provide—so they think they can get away with raising bills, failing to invest, and ploughing money into shares and dividends. Their time has come, and the Bill is apt. The new Government is providing new opportunities to change the way in which we look at water and consider it as a fundamental part of everyday life.

But as I have been listening to the debate this afternoon, I started to wonder whether the Bill is actually needed, because if we listen to the hon. Members for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) or for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), apparently everything in the Bill has already been done, and we are fine. I struggled to reconcile what the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) said in her opening speech—about this Government copying what the previous Government did in the Environment Act—with the rather gory descriptions of the effluence and other material found in waterways across the country.

I represent Stoke-on-Trent—the clue is in the name; it is the river on which we sit—and I know thousands of hours of sewage have been discharged into that river. Equivalent amounts of sewage are also being pumped into places like the Fowlea brook and the Lyme brook by a water company that is seemingly more worried about protecting its dividends than the health of the people I have been sent here to represent.

How did we get to this point, if everything the last Government did was apparently fine? The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) summed it up perfectly when he talked about the importance of regulation. Actually, we have gap when it comes to regulation—it is an enforcement gap. We have great regulation on paper that says, “You will do this, and this will happen” and “There will be penalties and fines”, but the previous Government systematically over time reduced the amount of funding available to the regulatory organisations, so that their enforcement became reactionary to events. According to the Conservatives, the reason why we have 100% monitoring of discharges is not because of some benevolent act by a party that cared about the environment; it is because the previous Government got bored and tired of the community groups around the country campaigning on the issue, and they thought, “We’ll do something about it.” I find it no coincidence that that happened this year—in an election year.

I hope that the Minister will talk more about how regulatory enforcement will happen, and about how we will provide the powers and the money that are needed.