Bathing Water Regulations

Debate between John Hayes and Manuela Perteghella

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing this timely and urgent debate.

A healthy natural environment is essential for both public health and our economy, yet our rivers and bathing waters are being polluted at an alarming rate. In my constituency of Stratford-on-Avon, the River Avon, meandering along its valley, is a treasured natural asset that is used by many residents for kayaking, swimming, boating and rowing, but sewage discharges and pollution threaten its water quality.

Under the previous Government, water companies were allowed to pollute our rivers while consumers paid the price. We need stronger regulations, legally binding water quality targets, and more transparent, year-long testing to tackle this crisis. Local authorities must also be given greater powers to hold polluters accountable.

I thank the many citizen science projects in my constituency, such as Safe Avon, that have highlighted the scale of the issue and the impact of poor water quality on the Avon, its tributaries, and our many precious brooks and streams. Our local residents and groups have come together to create River Hope, which is a new participatory process taking place in Stratford-on-Avon. It fosters a positive narrative for the River Avon ecosystem, and involves individuals, community groups and others implementing activities and events in, on, around and about our local water catchments and their biodiverse ecosystems. Residents not only engage in practical actions to restore and protect the wildlife and flora that the river sustains, but create a positive narrative of gratitude, good stewardship and love for the water as an essential element of thriving biodiversity.

The river has rights. Our rivers and waterways should be safe for swimming and for thriving wildlife, and should be protected for future generations to cherish and enjoy.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I am calling the Front Bench spokespeople early. That is not an invitation to speak—[Interruption.] Sorry, do we have Cameron Thomas? I did not think you were bobbing.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Debate between John Hayes and Manuela Perteghella

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is right and he encourages me to turn to the ombudsman’s report, which I have before me. Members will be pleased to note that, although I have inserted many tags into my copy of this report and the previous one, I will not refer to all of them. That would take forever.

Suffice it to say that the ombudsman found

“maladministration in DWP’s communication about the 1995 Pensions Act resulted in complainants losing opportunities to make informed decisions about some things and to do some things differently, and diminished their sense of personal autonomy and financial control.”

The ombudsman’s remedy is set out at the end of the second report. Ombudsmen recommend recompense on a scale—a series of levels, from 1 to 6. The report is here for everyone who has not studied it in detail to see: the ombudsman recommended a level 4 response. That means

“a significant and/or lasting injustice that has, to some extent, affected someone’s ability to live a relatively normal life.”

It suggests that the recompense might be between £1,000 and £2,950.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

I will in a second.

That suggestion seems to me to be a pretty modest response. It is not extreme, extravagant, unrealistic or unreasonable. It is a modest, measured response borne of the fact that the ombudsman has found maladministration. I have read the two reports. Having been in this House for a long time, been on the Front Bench of my party for 19 years and been a Minister in many Departments, I have rarely seen an ombudsman’s report as clear as this one about maladministration by a Government Department. On that note, I give way.

[Manuela Perteghella]

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. Does he agree that rejecting the ombudsman’s recommendations for the compensation of WASPI women undermines the role of independent bodies in holding the Government to account? If we cannot rely on the Government to implement such findings, what message does that send to the public about justice and fairness?

[Sir John Hayes]

That brings me to the constitutional point that I said I would make. I have established an ethical case, but there is a constitutional issue about the ombudsman. Over the years, we have developed a number of ways of holding the Executive to account. Parliament does that, of course, but there needs to be other means of doing so on particular and specific issues. That is why the Select Committee system emerged: as a way of studying what the Government were doing and making recommendations accordingly. That is also how ombudsmen began. They are an additional mechanism through which Government can be held to account, but for Select Committees and ombudsmen to have meaning, they must have teeth.