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

Helena Dollimore Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Hudson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 3, which His Majesty’s Opposition will again push to a vote, has at its heart the people we want to protect—the very individuals who this Committee has acknowledged are most affected: the consumers and bill payers. They are the pivotal reason why we have tabled the clause.

The clause would require the Secretary of State to make provision so that where a water company has faced financial penalties for failure to comply with the law, a financial amount equal to those penalties must be removed from the bills of that water company’s consumers. Of course, one might suppose that it is difficult to make an equivalence between the amount of a financial penalty and the amount to be reduced on the bills, but subsection (2) sets out that it must be calculated by dividing the total financial penalty by the water company’s number of customers. We have laid out a formula that the Secretary of State could follow in fulfilling the duties under the clause.

The Government might object that the clause would create additional duties for the Secretary of State on top of their existing ones, but the Opposition believe that the measure is relatively simple, can be calculated and is worth adopting for the very principle of accountability for which all of us across this House are striving.

I have already mentioned that, when the Conservatives were in government, we took action to set out that water bosses would be banned from receiving bonuses if a company had committed serious criminal breaches. The Bill copies that and takes it forwards, but the new clause takes the principle of accountability, which has been raised in the Committee’s last couple of sittings, even further.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. The hon. Member referred to the record of his party while in government for the last 14 years, and said that it set the threshold for a water boss being denied a bonus at the level of criminal activity. Does he agree that many of our constituents would find it strange to set a bar for not having a bonus at the level of committing criminal activity, given that in many workplaces up and down the country a bonus is based on good performance and on serving customers? The last Government set the bar for banning bonuses far too high, and that is why, despite repeated failure, the boss of Southern Water still received a bonus, as the boss of Ofwat confirmed to the Select Committee.

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

Helena Dollimore Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers.

On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I rise to challenge the Government on their plans in Government amendments 1 and 2. Before I go into the detail, I will make some general comments about the clause that are pertinent to the amendments.

The Opposition worry that the Bill, rather than taking original and new measures to tackle these issues, is purely an attempt to copy and paste the work done by our previous Conservative Government. In fact, many of the measures have already been copied from previous measures that we introduced in government.

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

In the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, we took evidence from the chief executive of Ofwat, who was clear that the bonus that the boss of Southern Water, Lawrence Gosden, received this year would not have been paid had the previous Conservative Government brought the measures in this Bill before the House. The Conservatives had 14 years to change the rules, but they failed to do so.

[Dr Hudson]

With the greatest respect, I sat on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the previous Parliament, and we took evidence from the chief executive of Ofwat on some of the key measures that the Conservative Government brought forward. Our Government gave Ofwat teeth and powers, and we need to make sure it uses them.

As detailed in the explanatory notes, Ofwat already has wide powers to set the conditions of water company appointments and licences. The Conservatives worked hard to strengthen its ability and power to do that since this issue came to the fore in order to drive the regulatory change that was vitally needed to tackle the scale of the crisis that came to light.

I again remind Members on both sides of the House that when Labour left office in 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were monitored; when we Conservatives left office, 100% of outflows were monitored. We found the scale of the sewage problem and were the first party to start to address it. The Conservative Government’s Environment Act 2021 gave Ofwat the power to consider, when deliberating about dividends, the environmental performance of a company and its credit rating, whereby Ofwat could stop the paying of dividends if it felt that the firm faced financial risks as a result of its actions.

[Dr Hudson]

If the hon. Gentleman checks Hansard, he will see that in my speech on Second Reading and just now I said “storm overflows”. I gently remind the third-party spokesman that in the coalition Government the Liberal Democrats had a Water Minister who did absolutely nothing on this issue.

[Helena Dollimore]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tim Farron]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

I have expressed my concerns. It would be perfectly possible to achieve the object, which I share, of improving the voice of the customer in water companies, or of improving the implementation of the existing obligation on water companies to take account of the consumer interest. I do not think that the current drafting is the best that we can do. I raise these concerns so that they may be properly considered.

[Helena Dollimore]

I thank the Minister for all her work in introducing this Bill so quickly in the new Parliament. It is a Bill that my constituents in Hastings and Rye desperately need. As I have said many times in this House, our constituency of Hastings, Rye and the villages has suffered hugely at the hands of Southern Water. Litres of raw sewage has been pumped into the sea. Our town centre has been flooded twice, leaving homes and businesses under sewage water, and our taps have run dry twice in less than a year. We in Hastings and Rye felt the impact of 14 years of Conservative failure to crack down on water companies’ bad behaviour.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

I agree with many of the hon. Lady’s points. Many of our constituents are feeling the same effects, but does she not agree that the reason why the Bill has been introduced so quickly in this Parliament with so few new ideas in it is that most of the work was done by the previous Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Helena Dollimore]

I think Opposition Members are slightly confused about the record of the Government of the past 14 years, of which both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives were a part at different points. My constituents in Hastings, Rye and the villages would find the hon. Gentleman’s assertion that the last Government fixed the crisis in our water companies very bizarre indeed. I draw his attention to the powers that this Government are introducing to ban bosses’ bonuses when they fail our constituents. The last Government left thousands of outlets unmonitored, and when there were monitors, they were reporting to the water companies themselves. What this Government are doing differently is not allowing the water companies to mark their own homework; we are saying that monitors should report directly to Government, not the water companies.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Lady says that it was the last Government who allowed the water companies—the undertakers—to mark their own homework. Does she not recall that it was actually the Labour Government in 2008 who specifically changed the rules to allow water companies to do just that in relation to their environmental performance?

[Helena Dollimore]

I am yet to hear an apology from the Conservatives for their failure to put monitors on any outlet in my constituency, their failure to make those monitors report to Government at all, and their failure to address the severity of the sewage scandal that has caused so much disruption for my constituents, for local businesses and for so many people up and down this country.

I pay tribute to campaigners in so many of our constituencies. Many are in the Public Gallery and they have done so much work exposing this scandal for what it is. We would not be discussing the scale of this scandal were it not for their hard work. In my constituency, Clean Water Action Group campaigners go out regularly of their own accord and out of their own pockets to test the water to expose what Southern Water is doing in our community. I pay tribute to them.

What we are discussing today is a measure to ban bosses’ bonuses, because it is so important that we do not see what we have seen over the last 14 years of Conservative Government—the continued failure to prevent Southern Water from rewarding bosses with bonuses. Laurence Gosden, the chief executive of Southern Water, received a bonus last year when we had seen repeated failure in Hastings and Rye under Southern Water’s watch. As I said earlier, the chief executive of Ofwat confirmed to the Select Committee that had the measures in the Bill been put in place last year by the Conservative Government, the bonus would not have been paid. Laurence Gosden only received that bonus because of the failure of the Conservatives to act when they had 14 years to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Helena Dollimore]

I will make some progress, because I know that we need to make progress in the debate.

In conclusion, I thank the Minister for her work on bringing the Bill before the House so quickly. I know that this is just the start of the change that we need to deliver on our water companies. This Government are acting where the previous Conservative and coalition Governments failed, and are working to clean up our water system.

[Charlie Maynard]

I have a question for you, Mr Vickers. This is my first Bill Committee and I am trying to understand how everything works. There are six amendments to clause 1, and our task is to do line-by-line scrutiny. My ambition is to understand why the Government support or reject each of those amendments. At the moment, in our debate of clause 1, we are swimming quite happily between those amendments. I would love your advice, Mr Vickers, as to how we work to understand what the story is on each amendment in turn, because I am not clear on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

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

Helena Dollimore Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Charlie Maynard]

Let us talk about the spectrum of information here. We have got the number of spills, where we have no idea how long those spills went on. We then have EDMs—event duration monitors—which count the number of hours of pollution. There is then the volume of flow, and then various iterations around measuring dissolved oxygen, or whatever it might be. I do not want the perfect to be the enemy of the good. We need to make progress. Thames Water is installing flow monitors all over its network, upstream of its sewage treatment works, but not downstream. That is because it is scared of actually having to count and have in the public domain the volume of sewage that it is dumping.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) said, “If you have a coke bottle of sewage, and you don’t know how diluted it is, you still don’t want it in your bath.” Of course we want to know how diluted it is—that would be nice—but if we are serious about addressing these problems, we need to know how much is coming out of those overflows.

To quantify what has been going on over the last few years—I give the previous Government some credit—some 14,000 monitors have been installed in the last seven years, which is good news. The figure was less than 1,000, and 15,000 have now been installed on the storm overflows, but another 7,000 do not have monitors. Amendment 16 talks about where those locations are. We can have overflows at a sewage treatment works, at a pumping station or on the sewer network. I believe that everyone on this Committee wants to capture wherever that overflow is, which is what the amendment would do.

I will try to quantify some of the numbers, and I will talk about my favourite, Thames Water. Right now, Thames Water has 30 event duration monitors at inlet storm overflows at waste water treatment works. It has 183 EDMs on storm tanks at waste water treatment works and 137 EDMs at storm discharge overflows at pumping stations, and it has 320 storm overflows on the sewer network—not in a pumping station or at a treatment works. We are trying to capture all those areas, because we need to know what is going on. If we do not know what is going on, we cannot fix it.

Amendment 13 is on the volume of discharge. Amendment 14 concerns the same count, so I will not go into it in more detail. Amendment 15 relates to reporting on discharge from overflows and would add to existing stipulations about the form in which the information must be published. I will read it out: the information must

“be uploaded and updated automatically”.

Let us get rid of human involvement. We are in 2025—all this stuff can, and should, be automated.

Professor Peter Hammond has done some great research, and I am incredibly grateful to Windrush Against Sewage Pollution, which has been one of the drivers of information and campaigning in this space. Well done to Peter, Ash, Vaughan and Geoff; I give them many thanks. Peter spotted that when Thames Water monitors its sewage, it does so at the wrong times of day, when the level of sewage is at its lowest. We want to automate that so that it is monitored all the time. That means less human interaction and lower costs, and it is much more achievable.

There is a map that shows whether sewage has been dumped in the last 48 hours, is being dumped currently or has not been dumped in the last 48 hours—Thames Water was actually one of the first to put that in the public domain—but it does not give the historical information. We need the historical information in there and it needs to be downloadable, so that any citizen scientist can come along, pull the data off and act on it. Without amendment 15, we do not have that. These are very nuts-and-bolts, practical things that we want to head along.

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

On the questions that the hon. Gentleman is asking around the type of monitors we have on sewage outlets, is he aware that the Environmental Audit Committee looked at this very issue in the last Parliament? It recommended the approach currently being taken by the Bill, which is to look at monitors upstream and downstream that look at the water quality. The Committee regarded that as the best way to assess this issue.

[Charlie Maynard]

I am very happy with looking at monitors upstream and downstream. That is fine, but I want them all to be in, and I want them done quicker. In the last seven years, 14,000 monitors were put in. As per the House of Commons Library briefing on clause 3, we are currently being signed up to a much slower installation of monitors—it does not matter if they are EDMs or flow meters. The briefing states:

“The reporting duty on discharges from emergency overflows would be phased in, with water companies expected to achieve 50% monitoring coverage by the end of the next price review in 2030 and 100% by 2035, the end of the following price review.”

Why would we go slower? That is a lot slower than what has been done over the last seven years. We should be moving much faster.

I find it rather depressing that I suspect this information came out of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Why is there this desire to slow the whole thing down if possible? We have a huge problem, so why are we not moving faster to deal with it? Frankly—I am not looking at the crew opposite—the DEFRA mindset is profoundly depressing. That’s that.

Amendment 16 covers the installation rate. What we are trying to do there is get the rate much faster. We have asked for 12 months, and I will try to quantify this; I have a business background. How much do flow monitors cost? How much they cost matters. Flow monitors are £500 to £2,000 per unit. We have 15,000 across the country, so we are talking £85 million or whatever it might be. That is if we have £2,000 as the unit cost. If we take the higher level of the unit cost and say that each of them will cost £2,000 to install, it is quite a lot of money. We did it much cheaper in west Oxfordshire and Witney. Well done to the Witney flood mitigation group. It got 10 installed for a fraction of that, so that is doable. Let us just talk £84 million. Does that sound like a lot of money? Frankly, it does not to me, and I will try to quantify that. The £84 million is between 10 or so water companies. Thames Water alone has £17 billion of debt. We are talking about £84 million. It is a fractional number, and if we are serious about fixing our problems, we have to go there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Paffey]

Thank you, Mr Vickers—so keen was I to support the clause that I tried to speak to it too early. I appreciate your forbearance.

Clause 3 has my full support. As I mentioned, I live in an area served by Southern Water. The citizen scientists on the River Itchen have done such good work that they regularly and consistently show that there are unacceptably high levels of faecal matter in the river, even when there has been no storm or emergency. The fleshing out of the requirement for monitoring so that there can be greater accountability is hugely welcome.

Furthermore, my area is entirely relevant to new clause 25 because of the aquatic sports, particularly during the pandemic. A great wild swimming group use the river, and there are also paddle boarders, canoeists and kayakers. I have the greatest respect for them: they go where I would not be willing to at the moment because the levels of illness that people have reported. The stench of what goes into the river also affects local schoolchildren, who cannot play outside. There are all kinds of reasons why the clause will deal with the issues being experienced in my constituency.

We want bathing water status in the area, but that is almost an impossibility at the moment because of the water quality. Again, clause 3 will guarantee the openness, monitoring and forcing of accountability in the area. I welcome the clause and thank the Minister for bringing it forward. The Bill takes action and makes achieving that status much more likely. People in my constituency and beyond, across not only Southern Water’s area but the country, will welcome it too.

[Helena Dollimore]

Does my hon. Friend share my horror at our current situation, in which constituents are getting ear and eye infections from swimming in the sea or rivers? One constituent of mine even attributes their deafness in one ear to an infection they got in the sea. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill is desperately needed for our constituents?

[Darren Paffey]

I share my hon. Friend’s shock and disgust at not only what people are suffering, but the entirely avoidable reasons why people are becoming ill. There are so many benefits to what the clause and the wider Bill can achieve, not just on the issues that Members on both sides of the House have mentioned in relation to trust in our water companies and the use of public money, but for public health. How much more public health benefit could people across all our constituencies experience if they were able to engage with aquatic sports or just enjoy the park areas that surround so many of our rivers, beaches and waterways? I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and am grateful that her point adds even more weight to why this clause is absolutely necessary.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Helena Dollimore Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am delighted to open the Second Reading debate on the Water (Special Measures) Bill—something I hope the whole House will consider to be an early Christmas present. I thank the noble Baroness Hayman of Ullock for her outstanding leadership of the Bill during its passage through the House of Lords, where it quite rightly won support from all sides.

Our rivers, lakes and seas are part of our beautiful British landscape and have been enjoyed by generations. Our countryside is one of the things that makes us proudest to be British, but that pride too often turns to dismay because in too many parts of our country, the local river, lake or beach has been made filthy by pollution. People worry that the places they enjoyed when they were younger are no longer there for their own children or grandchildren. No parent should have to worry that their child might get sick from splashing around in the local sea or river. Our green and pleasant land is no longer quite so pleasant. Our rivers, lakes and seas are being choked by record levels of pollution from untreated sewage, as well as chemicals and run-off from agriculture and highways.

The Bill is not just about the desecration of water running through our countryside. Clean water is essential for every home and business up and down the country. It is one of the essential foundations of our economy, our communities and our national security. We use water to cool power stations, generate electricity, supply our leisure industries and grow the food that feeds us, but our water infrastructure is under increasing strain. It is outdated, inadequate and crumbling. The situation is made worse by our changing climate, with more frequent and severe rainfall, floods and droughts. Water supplies to homes and businesses are disrupted too frequently in some parts of the country. I have spoken to residents in Hastings and Rye who were rightly furious at the inadequate information, lack of alternative supply and little to no compensation when yet another outage happened in their locality.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for the work he and his Department are doing to change the compensation rules so that when these incidents happen, my constituents get higher levels of compensation—something that the Conservatives had 14 years to do, but failed to do. Had they acted in that time, my residents would not be left without compensation for the incidents that have happened in Hastings, Rye and the villages.

[Steve Reed]

I pay huge credit to my hon. Friend. She has been such a champion for her communities in Hastings and Rye, demanding the better water services they deserve.

The failure to invest in our water infrastructure means that the demand for clean drinking water will start to outstrip supply as early as the mid-2030s. Without urgent action, some parts of the country would then face water rationing. The water system is broken but, instead of fixing it, the previous Conservative Government just stood back and watched as our water infrastructure crumbled into disrepair. Instead of strengthening regulation to ensure water companies invested sensibly and at the right time, the Conservatives hobbled the regulator and let water companies divert millions of pounds into wholly unjustified multimillion-pound bonuses and dividend payments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

Particularly as the hon. Gentleman was talking about effluent, which is not respectful. I know that he is capable of much greater advocacy than that. I am afraid that I will take no lessons from the Reform party, as he encourages, although I understand that Labour may face some threats from that party in the Welsh Senedd elections—but I digress.

We made it clear that the water industry must prioritise action to improve the environment, including protecting priority habitats such as chalk streams. I have the good fortune to have chalk streams in my constituency; they have carved their way through Lincolnshire’s wolds for the last 10,000 years. The dedicated chalk streams fund, announced by the Conservatives in 2022, has been put to good use in Lincolnshire. Will the Minister for Water and Flooding, whom I welcome to her place, confirm in her wind-up that the protection schemes for chalk streams will continue?

Following the pandemic, we launched our plan for water, which integrates water and food planning, tackles all sources of pollution and gives the Environment Agency the power to issue bigger penalties to water companies. We banned microbeads in rinse-off personal care products, reduced plastic bag usage by 95% and banned wet wipes containing plastic, which is a huge source of water pollution.

I understand why the Labour Government highlight the bonuses that water company bosses have received. Again, I gently point out to the Secretary of State—perhaps he has not done his homework—that the Environment Act 2021, which his Back Benchers do not seem to have read, gave regulators the power to ban water bosses from receiving bonuses if companies have committed serious criminal breaches. [Interruption.] Labour Members ask whether the regulators used it. They are independent, and it is for the regulators to justify why they have not used that power under the legislation that is available.

[Helena Dollimore]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Victoria Atkins]

I will do in a moment—I am not like the Secretary of State.

The truth is that Labour Members do not like hearing the facts. We brought forward measures to ensure that companies that pollute the environment can be hit with unlimited financial penalties. We also set up the water restoration fund, meaning that any fines or penalties levelled at water companies were ringfenced to support projects that improve the environment and keep pressure off bills, rather than being returned to the Treasury. The fact that Ministers appear to have stalled the fund reveals how little this Government understand the countryside or care about it. Indeed, it looks like they have held back £168 million in fines that were due to be paid into the fund.

Why on earth would this Labour Government not want polluters to pay? Why are they content for fines of many millions of pounds to be paid into the Treasury slush fund, rather than local environmental projects that have been damaged by storm overflows? Does the Treasury really need that money, or is it perhaps paying for the Deputy Prime Minister’s new, flash apartment? My colleagues and I will work to ensure that the water restoration fund is reinstated and that money goes to local environment projects to protect local environments, as was intended.

Most of the measures in this Bill, including monitoring, blocking bonuses and significant fines, were in fact brought it by the Conservative Government. Indeed, primary legislation is not necessary to put most of these measures into practice.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on water pollution. Today, we will vote on a landmark piece of legislation to begin the clean-up of our water industry. The measures in the Bill ramp up regulation, ban bosses’ bonuses and ensure independent monitors on every sewage outlet, linked to a system of automatic severe fines. Make no mistake: these are the biggest increase in powers for a generation, and the changes cannot come soon enough for my constituency.

Before I come to the devastating impact that Southern Water has unleashed on my constituency, I pay tribute to the campaigners and community volunteers who exposed the scandal. It is only because of their determination and detective work that we have understood the scale of the problem. Volunteers from the clean water action group in Hastings go out testing the water three times a week. I also thank our local East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service, who time after time are the first on the scene when sewage is spilling out on to the street.

The community that I represent in Hastings and Rye is furious at the conduct of Southern Water. From Camber Sands to Old Roar Gill, sewage has poured on to our beaches and beauty spots. Our way of life as a seaside community has been compromised. Our appeal as a tourist destination has been tarnished and livelihoods have been ruined. Many people have got sick from swimming in the sea, or caught ear or eye infections. People have ended up in hospital with sickness, and one constituent even attributes her deafness in one ear to an infection that she caught swimming in the sea. Another constituent in Winchelsea beach told me that he cannot grow vegetables because for the last decade his back garden has been regularly flooded with sewage. A family in West St Leonards had to move out of their home for months and live in temporary accommodation after sewage flooded their home.

The town centre in Hastings was flooded twice in one year. Businesses and residents who had just moved back into redecorated homes saw their homes flooded all over again under a foot of sewage water. They then had to be rescued by firefighters. It was shameful. It has cost our community millions in damage, as well as the untold human cost of having possessions, property and livelihoods ruined. In the vast majority of cases, residents and businesses in my constituency have not been properly compensated by Southern Water. We have been left on our own to pick up the pieces, all while Southern Water’s boss has been allowed to collect a huge bonus. That money should be spent on fixing broken pipes, not rewarding failure.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I commend the hon. Lady on her excellent speech, and her celebration of local campaigners. In my constituency, Thames Water is responsible for numerous sewage leaks and a great stink that lingered over our market town of Camberley last summer. Does she agree that the Bill needs to provide for tougher regulation, and greater transparency and accountability, to ensure that water companies put health and safety and water quality over shareholder dividends?

[Helena Dollimore]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. One of the things in the Bill that I really welcome is that it will stop water companies marking their own homework. The monitors on every outlet will report independently to the Government, so that we can issue automatic severe fines—a big change and step forward.

If huge amounts of sewage and major flooding in my constituency were not enough for one community to endure, we have also suffered major water outages at the hands of Southern Water. The taps have run dry twice in recent memory. In September 2023, 10,000 residents of Rye were left without water for up to nine days. In May this year, in Hastings, 30,000 people were left without water for five days. It caused huge disruption and had a major impact on local businesses. It has to stop. The Conservatives had 14 years to update the compensation guidelines for such incidents, and failed to act. Because of the action that this Labour Government are taking, if future incidents occur, my constituents will be eligible for greater compensation from Southern Water.

The Conservatives let the water companies off the hook for far too long. Instead of forcing the industry to invest in crumbling infrastructure, customers’ money was instead siphoned off into shareholder payouts and bonuses. My constituents now face record water bills because of that failure. We inherited a crumbling water system from the Conservative party, and this Labour Government are acting to clean up the mess. This Government are acting where the previous Conservative Government failed, to end the disgraceful behaviour of the water companies and their bosses with this Bill. This is just the start of the change. I thank the Government for announcing an independent commission on the water sector to see what more they can do to ensure that the water sector works for customers and the environment. I will work very hard to ensure that the voices of my residents in Hastings, Rye and the villages are heard as part of that process.

Budget: Implications for Farming Communities

Helena Dollimore Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for promoting me to Secretary of State—I hope he has similar success in the coming hours.

The hon. Gentleman raises a whole series of questions. He asked again, as others have, about other elements in the Budget. The figures are absolutely there; they were published by the Treasury and are there for all to read. They are the facts on the estates that have made claims on agricultural property relief in the last year available. [Interruption.] They are there for everyone to see. It is not difficult, it is not complicated—they are there.

Something that perhaps has not been said, but which should be, is that there were many calls to reflect the changing way in which farming operates by including environmental land management schemes within the scope of agricultural property relief. I hear nothing from Opposition Front Benchers about that. Do they not understand the way in which British farming is changing?

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

Many farmers in my constituency of Hastings and Rye are feeling the impact of 14 years of Conservative failure. In particular, they have faced many challenges with flooding. Can the Minister tell me what steps we have taken in the Budget to protect small family farms and how we will continue to support farmers facing flooding?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend because she makes some important points. Ahead of the Budget, there were lots of predictions about what would happen. Of course, what happened is that this Government have protected the farming budget—indeed, raised it—and we are absolutely committed to paying out to farmers the £60 million that they deserve for flooding. That is £60 million, of course, that was not really budgeted for by the Conservatives, as part of their £22 billion black hole. The difference between us and them is that we are taking a responsible approach, which means that farmers can look forward to a stable future, as opposed to the chaos of the last decade.

Independent Water Commission

Helena Dollimore Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for the points that he makes. Of course, he is right. The Water (Special Measures) Bill, with its ban on bonuses, will not be sufficient to reset the sector, although it is an ask that the public are rightly making because of the unfairness of people who are overseeing failure being richly rewarded for that failure. That should not have been allowed to go on under the previous Government, and it will not go on under this new Government.

The reason we have set up the commission is to address the very points the right hon. Gentleman makes about financial and environmental sustainability and viability. I look forward to working with him and his Committee as the commission carries out its work, as we review its findings in the summer of next year, and as we then shape what will be significant new legislation to reset the sector—a reformed sector—in a new partnership with Government to bring in the investment that will finally clean up our waterways.

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

I declare an interest as a customer of Southern Water who lost my water supply for five days earlier this year, as did 30,000 of my constituents. As the Secretary of State knows well from his visits to Hastings and to Rye, we have major issues from flooding to sewage to water outages. I welcome the water commission. How can my constituents, particularly volunteer groups such as the Clean Water Action group, have their voices heard, particularly their concerns about ensuring that the regulators have the power and resources to clean up our sea?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend is a powerful campaigner for cleaner water. In fact, it is hard to think of anybody who has campaigned harder on the issue. The commission will seek to engage the public at large, as well as a wider group of stakeholders who will be represented on an advisory group, which will include a customer voice. Once the commission has reported, the Government will consult on those findings and that will inform the subsequent legislation that will reset this sector once and for all.

Water Companies: Regulation and Financial Stability

Helena Dollimore Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Tim Farron]

I absolutely agree. That reminds us that, of the over 464,000-plus spills that took place in 2023, most were legal and permitted—and most of them should not have been. We juxtapose this failure with the reality of money leaking out of the sector in the form of dividends and bonuses. Since privatisation, £78 billion has been paid out in dividends and, in the last four years, we saw £62 million paid out to company executives in bonuses.

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

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. He has a very beautiful constituency in the Lake district and has campaigned strongly on this issue. Would he therefore welcome this Government’s commitment to cleaning up the water industry and that they called in the water bosses within the first week of the Labour Government to say that investment must be ringfenced for infrastructure and not spent on bonuses, and will he be supporting the Water (Special Measures) Bill?

[Tim Farron]

First of all, I am merely, and happily, an honourable Member, although it is very kind of the hon. Lady to call me “right honourable”. Secondly, we welcome many proposals in the Bill. We have already tabled many amendments in the House of Lords because although we think that the Bill is a step in the right direction, a lot more could be done. I will make more of that in a moment.

It is worth saying, as we are talking about bonuses, that although there was a 54% increase in spills between 2022 and 2023, it did not rain 54% more in 2023 than in 2022; there was no justification for that increase— and yet, the bonuses happen. I have never worked in an industry where bonuses were the norm, but my understanding is that they are paid for success, not as a commiseration for statistically proven and repeated failures.

It is easy to be angry about all this—I am, and maybe it is essential to be so—but it is just as important to be constructive and seek solutions. The depth, seriousness and complexity of this crisis means that the only answers that will work need to be radical and ambitious. Today’s announcement of a water commission, which will consider these things, is welcome, but also a little frustrating. Do we really need to spend the best part of a year stroking our chins and pondering, when what is needed is radical action now? With respect, most of us pretty much predicted the likelihood of a Labour Government two years ago. Did the victory strike them as a surprise? Why were they not ready with a plan to deliver much sooner than this?

I have a similar view, as I have just suggested, about the Water (Special Measures) Bill. It contains many positives, including criminal liability for CEOs responsible for severe environmental failure, but it does not amount to the radical structural transformation that is so obviously needed. The British people rightly believe that they voted for a far more ambitious plan to be urgently delivered. Indeed, those who voted Liberal Democrat absolutely did vote for that, so we are determined to keep our word and fight for that action.

It seems obvious how regulation could be made better. Water industry regulation is fragmented, with environmental regulation done by the Environment Agency and business regulation done by Ofwat. That just does not work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helena Dollimore Excerpts

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?

[Steve Reed]

What has been going on in my hon. Friend’s constituency is completely unacceptable. I know that she has been a huge champion for cleaning up the water in that part of the country. One of the things we are looking at doing is doubling the rates of compensation from water companies when they let down their customers as she described.