Water Bill
James Frith ExcerptsFriday 28th March 2025
(5 days, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Water Bill 2024-26 View all Water Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Clive Lewis
On the issue of water, yes, I would say they are, because whether I like it or not, Reform has a policy for water to be owned 50% by pension companies and 50% by the public. As much as it grieves me to say it, that is a policy of public ownership. They are populist; they are listening to a popular voice.
Clive Lewis
I will make some progress and then give way, and I will also try to keep the volume down a little bit.
This is about the maintenance of a political and economic model that was never built to serve the public—a model designed to shield the wealth of asset holders, landlords, shareholders, corporations and, yes, privatised water companies. But here is the great irony: the very greed, recklessness and contempt of the water industry—its excesses—have cracked open the door, and through that crack, we glimpse an opportunity. It is an opportunity to shatter the myth of privatisation’s inevitability, to break free from the narrow, self-imposed rules that have caged our Government’s economic choices, to expose its failures, to challenge its dominance and, above all, to show this country that there is an alternative—an alternative that is democratic, sustainable and run in the interests of the many, not the few. We can do it better.
Mr Frith
My hon. Friend is making a typically impassioned speech. He says the general public are ahead of us. Where might that same public be when faced with the bill for bringing in the nationalisation he is clearly wedded to? Furthermore, in the event that we do not have to buy the water industry but seize it, the implications of that seizure will cause an economic collapse. At what point will he take responsibility for either of those scenarios when confronting a public who are, he says, ahead of us on this issue?
Clive Lewis
I will obviously come to many of those points later in my speech, but let me make this point now: I do not believe in nationalisation, and this Bill has nothing to do with nationalisation. This is about giving the public a say over their water. It is about governance, standards and democracy.
Clive Lewis
No, I am going to carry on and make some progress. You made your point. Let the public—
Clive Lewis
The cheapest borrowing in the country, without a doubt, is public sector borrowing. The private water industry, which has had 35 years to sort this mess out, is not going to find investment. It is up to its eyeballs in debt. It is relying on a 50% increase in our bills by 2030, if we include inflation, and that is in the middle of a cost of living crisis. How can we justify that? The answer is that we cannot.
Mr Frith
The day after the seizure of public assets that my hon. Friend is describing, billions and billions of pounds of debt will come with it. What does he propose to do with that debt, other than refinancing, which is exactly where we are at now with the industry requirement to refinance the debt to try to keep bills down? Instead, he is advocating that the public purse take on that private debt.
Clive Lewis
At the beginning of my now seemingly rather long speech, I think I referred to a failure of imagination. Ask what Margaret Thatcher would have done when she was faced with similar problems. She would have fought her way through it. She changed the very fabric of our economy, our democracy and our politics, and she made it work. We can do the same, because the public are behind us. They want this to work.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I compliment my good friend the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) on his passion, commitment, knowledge and determination. If I may say so, I am also grateful that he mentioned the late, great David Graeber in his introduction. He was a good friend to both of us, an amazing young man and an amazing philosopher sadly taken from us too soon. I think his family will be really chuffed that the hon. Member has included him in his speech on something so fundamental as the right to fresh, clean water for us all. This Bill seeks to protect that right; it recognises that water is an essential and basic need, and therefore something so universal and so essential surely ought to be completely in public hands. Most countries around the world do not even countenance the idea of privatising water; they say, “It is our public responsibility to ensure that we can provide clean and safe water for everybody.”
When the Government of Margaret Thatcher and others privatised water in the 1980s, many of us strongly opposed it—I think I am the only Member in the Chamber who had the privilege of voting against privatisation at the time. We predicted that it would lead to a rip-off of the public sector, and to asset stripping of the land and other resources that the water boards had built up. We also pointed out that the water infrastructure we enjoy—the reservoirs in Wales, in Scotland and all over England, the piping, the sewage works, and all the other hugely complex elements of infrastructure—was, for the most part, built by public enterprise and public investment. We all laud the work of Bialetti in producing a sewage system for London. That was not done by the private sector; it was done through Victorian investment in a public structure to bring about proper treatment of sewage and provide clean water for the people of London. We should be proud of the public investment that brought about the water system that we have, and should recognise that since 1989, when water was privatised, £72 billion has been taken out in dividends by the water companies. That amounts to £2 billion a year not invested in water—not invested in new pipes and in protecting the system we have. Those profits are extraordinary.
The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) rightly talked about the amount of pollution flowing into our rivers. I cannot get my head around the fact that 300,000 hours-worth of sewage was pumped into the Thames in the last year alone. When we add that to the amount being pumped into the Severn, the Trent, the Humber, the Mersey and all the great rivers across this country, we realise the scale of the problem we are dealing with. We then realise what happens to that—the sewage goes into the sea, and it comes back in fish. It pollutes water, which does not stop at the river’s mouth; it goes into the oceans, creating further global water pollution.
Surely we can do much better. I therefore welcome the Bill, and I invite Members to look seriously at clauses 1 and 2. Clause 1 sets out the measures that will be required in the Secretary of State’s strategy, including measures on prioritising investment, collaborating with local authorities and using natural flood management techniques, and a requirement for local authorities to take into account the need for conservation—all incredibly sensible measures that can only be delivered by public authorities. Privatised water companies do not have as their top line the conservation of the natural world and the environment. They have as their top line, their middle line and their bottom line the profits they can take out of it. And please, nobody tell me that the £72 billion paid out in dividends has been reinvested in the British economy. It is in tax havens all over the world. We are subsidising tax havens all over the world on the back of our polluted and privatised water industry.
Clause 2 relates to the commission on water, which is a fascinating proposal. The commission would include representatives of water companies—which are privatised at the moment but would hopefully be publicly owned—union representatives in the water industry, environmental or conservation groups, water users, which would be local businesses, and local authorities. I strongly support public ownership of water, but I do not envisage a situation in which the Prime Minister, as a gift to his friends, puts them all on a British water board. I would like to retain the existing system of managing river basin areas—Thames, Severn Trent and so on. That makes sense, because that is where the primary water supply comes from. That would be managed through a commission that includes the workforce, trade unions, all the local authorities in the area, local businesses, because they use water and supply services locally, and others who can be appointed from elsewhere. We would have public buy-in to the structure, which would give us a much better and more democratic system.
I urge Members to look with some imagination at what the hon. Member for Norwich South has put forward. Some say, “We can’t possibly bring this into public ownership because it might cost money.” The 1945 Labour Government started by nationalising the Bank of England in 1946 and went on to bring many other industries into public ownership. Even the Ted Heath Government in 1971 brought Rolls-Royce into public ownership and created Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd because the company was failing. The agreed share price was set by Parliament—it was not set by the market in all those cases. We can do the same in this case.
Mr Frith
The right hon. Gentleman and I stood for election in 2019 on a manifesto of public ownership of the utilities and water companies. It cost me my job, and the public decided to give Labour the worst electoral thumping in our history. Will he take some responsibility for that? Does he reflect on the point that what he is advocating has already been rejected by this country?
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank the hon. Member for that incredibly friendly and helpful intervention. I am most grateful to him for the collegiate way in which he put that; I could not put it better myself. That manifesto included public ownership of water and other services because those industries needed to come into public ownership; they were failing. The policies in that manifesto were all well in the plus category—more than 70% supported public ownership of water. This might be uncomfortable for him, but the Labour party actually received more votes publicly and nationally in 2019 than it did in the recent general election. We have an electoral system that is unbelievably unfair, and which brought about an enormous majority on a very low total vote. We can all play with the numbers.
I do not resile from what was in that manifesto, because it was put there by people who worked in the industry. The GMB and other unions took part in the consultation that brought about that policy on water. I urge the hon. Member to consider the Bill put forward by my friend the hon. Member for Norwich South, and to recognise that it is an opportunity to do something different.
There has been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing about having a commission, or a citizens’ assembly. Why is everybody so scared of a citizens’ assembly? What is the big problem with it? Is it something in Members’ heads? What is going on? Why would anyone be so worried about it? Citizens get together and put forward a proposal. We do not have to agree it or accept it, and it does not take away the powers of Parliament. It gives an opportunity for randomly selected ordinary citizens to put forward a point of view. That was done a lot in Scotland when we were talking about devolution. It has been done in other places; in Chile, it was done to develop a new constitution, some of which was ultimately rejected in a referendum. Do these assemblies take away from or diminish the principles discussed? No. I believe they do the very opposite.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
I first want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) on the Bill and on his passionate speech. No one can be in any doubt about his commitment to this cause. I was struck by the elegance of his comments in his wind-up, which drew on his time serving in Afghanistan. I thank him for his service in Afghanistan; such service is frequently overlooked in this House. It was a very powerful moment in his speech when he combined his service with the argument he was making, and I congratulate him on that.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important and timely debate. Yesterday, we learnt of the 3.6 million hours of pollutant discharged into our waterways. The conditions of our rivers and seas, and the system that governs them, demand our national attention. There has been conversation about a lack of imagination, but our record in government is that we have already begun to grasp the challenges we have all described and understand. We are all overwhelmed by the contact made by our constituents on this issue and on the quality of water. A distant, arm’s length system has left us knee deep in pollution and the water companies are up to their necks in it. We need to continue with the mandate given to us at the general election to tackle this issue.
The issue is not just about pollution either; it is symptomatic of the crisis-mode, emergency nature of our public services that even getting attention on to flooding or river dredging or even accessing basic expertise feels like a game of cat and mouse when it comes to these organisations. Whether it is the Environment Agency ducking meetings in Bury North, or United Utilities or different utilities branches in respective areas, it is eternally frustrating and disappointing how lacking in accountability some of the organisations prove to be. There is politics and power in being a good customer service organisation; it is not just about an accountable constituency MP turning up and the company taking on board concerns. Even when a local MP writes to these organisations, we can receive short shrift or the organisation can fail to respond to the issues at hand. We need to bear down on the organisations and get the best for our people.
The mentality of accountability is decidedly missing from so many of our public service providers. We need to re-instil a sense that they are accountable to us—that we determine the nature of their work and the outcomes that we expect from them. Of course they are stretched and under pressure—we have all rehearsed the inheritance that the Labour Government have received—but too often there is a culture of avoidance, of obfuscation and, frankly, of ducking responsibilities. Nowhere is that more apparent than in a sector charged with safeguarding the very essence of life itself: water.
The issue is not abstract but a lived experience in communities such as mine. In Bury North, we know all too well the consequences of failure. The River Irwell, which flows from Ramsbottom to Radcliffe, was the most dumped in river in England last year. In 2023 alone, United Utilities was responsible for a staggering 11,974 sewage spills into the Irwell—an average of 32 every single day. That is not just staggering but shameful. The state we are in is barely fathomable. The issue is also personal—it is environmental and affects our families.
I have walked those river banks in Ramsbottom, through Burrs, with my children. I have warned them not to go near the water for a variety of reasons, which now also includes the pollutant level. I have spent many a sunny afternoon warning them to stay away from the water or encouraging other people’s families to exercise due care because of what lies beneath. The pollution of that river is a blight on our community and a direct threat to our health and wellbeing. It is not just a statistic but a national scandal—another day, another national scandal. It is barely believable that the situation should have been allowed to get this far.
Mark Ferguson
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the under-recognised aspects of sewage and pollution is their huge impact on the tourism industry and our ability to attract people to this country so that they spend their money here?
Mr Frith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right—that is an important observation. The town is doing its utmost to make Burrs, the country park I have been referring to, into a jewel, a place to visit and a destination to come to, but we have very little say in the quality of the water that runs through it.
I will engage with the proposals made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South and the aim to clean our rivers, strengthen environmental protections and ensure better oversight, but I believe that the Government are well under way with that focus. I remain focused on communities such as mine and what they need now—urgent, decisive action. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on what comes next and what we have already achieved. That has included the banning of bosses’ bonuses and of mega-payouts after decades of under-investment.
Jeremy Corbyn
I agree with what the hon. Member is saying about levels of pollution. Does he really think that United Utilities is a fit and proper organisation to carry on supplying water? Does he not think that somebody else should be doing it—like us?
Mr Frith
I would not suggest that either the right hon. Gentleman or I should be in charge of the water in my constituency.
We need severe and automatic fines for illegal sewage discharges. There has been real-time monitoring by campaigners, as well as formal observations—I have referred to yesterday’s updates. We need criminal charges for water company executives who have overseen law breaking, and stricter environmental and consumer standards.
None of this should divide us, but our focus should be the ends, not the means. To bring failing companies to heel requires a degree of imagination, and we need to put public service first. To simply say that we should have public ownership of everything, without asking who pays and who takes the debt thereafter, does not require imagination. It is a failure to answer the challenge and the question.
Carla Denyer
The hon. Member has expressed concern about how public ownership would be paid for. Is he aware of the special administration regime for water companies? It was brought in last year and would substantially address these issues.
Mr Frith
I am aware of the special arrangements that have historically been provided for many of our formerly nationalised utility organisations, but the clue is in the term “special”. Public ownership should not be the go-to; it is done only under extraordinary circumstances. The hon. Lady and I do not agree on that.
I want to recognise those who have worked so hard to raise the alarm—campaigners such as Feargal Sharkey and Labour’s own environmental champions, as well as Bury’s anglers, including Eric Owen and his team. Feargal and the campaigners joined me in Ramsbottom last year to stand with local residents and shine a light on the scale of this crisis. Feargal has been a passionate and vocal advocate for clean water, and has not hesitated to call out the water companies and call for their accountability. His support speaks volumes about the urgency and importance of this fight.
However we shape the future of water governance—whether through regulation, strategic oversight or questions of ownership—it is vital that we never lose sight of the people and places affected by it. This is not an abstract issue. It is about families in Ramsbottom and Radcliffe. It is about children being told not to play by the river. It is about the wildlife that no longer thrives. It is about the basic right to clean water and a functioning, fair system that protects it. To that end, will the Minister join my effort to register parts of the River Irwell in Bury North as an area of outstanding natural beauty, so that we might secure the protections it needs and the deeper attention that the issue of pollution deserves?
We must act, and we are acting. Let us continue to do so. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on what comes next in light of today’s debate. We owe it to our communities, our children and the generations that follow to end this sewage scandal and deliver the cleaner, safer future that they deserve.
Oral Answers to Questions
James Frith Excerpts(6 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
George Eustice
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about these issues just a couple of days ago. We made a clear manifesto commitment to protect spending on agriculture until 2022—the end of this Parliament. Thereafter we will have a new funded policy.
James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)
The Government are investing £2.6 billion to better protect the country from flooding. This includes a programme of more than 1,500 flood defence schemes, which will better protect 300,000 homes by 2021. The programme will deliver £30 billion of economic benefit for the next 50 years and is projected to reduce overall flood risk to the economy by 5% by 2021.
James Frith
The 2015 Boxing day floods devastated the Redvales and Radcliffe areas of Bury. The Environment Agency has drawn up a £37 million flood defence scheme for the area but, after raising £30 million between the EA, Greater Manchester and Bury Council, there is a £7 million shortfall. That shortfall would be covered if the bid with the Minister were successful. After being unsuccessful in the first round, we are to be considered again for funding from the £40 million pot for deprived areas. Can he update me on the progress of the bid? Successful bids to date have protected fewer than 100 homes, but ours would protect 1,200.