Water (Special Measures) Act 2025: Enforcement

Debate between Josh Newbury and Tom Gordon

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tom Gordon]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I do not envy her having to battle just one water company, but two. She has her work cut out for her—some of us are now breathing a sigh of relief in comparison. The problem is, as she outlined, that there is no accountability. It often takes public pressure, campaigning or us in this place banging the drum to talk about these issues to get those meetings set up and problems fixed when it is a basic obligation that water companies should already provide.

Since the introduction of the 2025 Act, we have seen issues across the country. The failure of water companies is a source of frustration and distrust in politics. People feel that the legislation that was passed is simply not working, or that we got it wrong. One of the most high-profile elements of the Water (Special Measures) Act was the commitment to block bonuses for executives at failing water companies. Water companies are upping their game and thinking about the way that they structure their payments to try and circumvent these measures and the bonus ban. Ofwat investigated Yorkshire Water last year, but said that it did not breach the legislation or regulatory guidance on executive pay. The payments made to the chief executive of Yorkshire Water, Nicola Shaw, through the offshore parent company Kelda Holdings were what they called “fixed fees” for group-level responsibilities and funded by shareholders. While technically that might not constitute a breach of the ban, it is a demonstration of how open to exploitation the system and the legislation are. Rather than a bonus ban, we have ended up with a bonus rebrand.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech on behalf of his constituents. Last year, it emerged that Thames Water was planning an enormous additional compensation package under the guise of a management retention plan. After being grilled by those of us on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and an understandable public outcry, it announced that it would no longer go ahead with that. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that any water company setting its moral bar lower than Thames Water should take a long, hard look in the mirror?

[Tom Gordon]

I completely agree with the hon. Member. I thank him and the Chair of the EFRA Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who is also here today. The work that they have been doing in highlighting the issues endemic to water companies across this country could not have come sooner. The fixes that they have highlighted in their reports are important for driving this conversation as we look towards the future.

Turning back to Yorkshire Water, in the past two years, those payments—which were apparently not bonuses but rather “fixed fees”, or whatever Yorkshire Water called them—totalled more than £1 million, on top of the near £700,000 annual basic salary, at a time when pollution incidents were rising and trust was collapsing. Yorkshire Water’s chief executive has since said that it was a “mistake” not to disclose those payments and not to have been more transparent. Well, that is too little too late when Yorkshire Water has been caught with its hand in the cookie jar. My message to Yorkshire Water is simple: it can rename a bonus to a “fixed fee” and apologise for getting caught out, but the stench of sewage still clings to it, and to the bosses at Yorkshire Water.

I remain concerned about the overreliance on fines as a primary enforcement tool. In recent years, we have seen Yorkshire Water and many other companies facing record-breaking fines, but the problem remains: the lack of accountability that they face, even when such astronomical penalties are imposed on them. Simply put, we cannot fine our way out of failure when customers end up footing the bill.

Neurodivergent People: Employment

Debate between Josh Newbury and Tom Gordon

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am pleased to have the chance to speak on the importance of supporting neurodivergent people into work. I will focus my remarks in particular on the experiences of autistic people, drawing on the voices of my own constituents and on the work of local organisations in Staffordshire. Since being elected, I have had constituents with autism reach out to my team and me, sharing with us that they find it difficult to get into and stay in work, despite being well qualified. They have spoken candidly with me about the barriers they face, as well as the skills and determination they have and can bring to an employer. Only by hearing directly from autistic people can we get this right.

The statistics remain stark. Only around 28% of autistic adults are in any form of work, compared with more than 80% of non-autistic people. That is not about a lack of ability; it is about the barriers that are in place, and the failure to make adjustments that are both reasonable and achievable.

The evidence tells us that, even with legal protections, too many disabled people and people with neurodivergence encounter managers or decision makers who simply do not believe in non-visible impairments, or who resist making adjustments. That creates mistrust, isolation and ultimately exclusion from work. We need to reduce stigma, but we also need to make it much simpler for employers. Right now many businesses, particularly small ones, simply do not know what adjustments look like in practice, how to put them in place or how to access the funding that exists to help them to do so. If we want employers to be more inclusive, guidance, training and access to support need to be much clearer, consistent and easy to navigate.

There are many positive examples. I recently met with the Staffordshire Adults Autistic Society, which does invaluable work supporting autistic people and their families. On the national stage, the inaugural neurodiversity employers index has highlighted organisations that are showing real leadership in adapting recruitment practices and workplace culture. We know that schemes such as supported internships can provide a pathway into work for young people with special educational needs and disabilities.

However, there are gaps. Supported internships, for example, are only available to those with an education, health and care plan, and many families in Staffordshire have told me how hard it is to secure one due to delays and mismanagement locally—something that we will be debating no doubt at length in this Chamber next Monday. This is not just a moral issue, but an economic one. The brilliant organisation Pro Bono Economics has shown that, by doubling the employment rate of autistic people by 2030, we can deliver up to £1.5 billion in societal benefits each and every year. As has been mentioned already, Sir Robert Buckland’s recent review concluded that to close the employment gap, we need more than just high-level words; we need practical, bottom-up support for employers, including training and long-term programmes such as Access to Work.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

One of the things that constituents have to come to me with is worries about the proposed changes—which have now been shelved—to personal independence payments. Does the hon. Member agree that the rhetoric and language of Ministers has not helped people to want to go out and seek support to get into work, due their worries about barriers they may face?

[Josh Newbury]

When we approach things such as welfare reform—this is probably also true of SEND reform—it is always bound to cause anxiety for people. We absolutely have to be mindful of that, particularly in this place, with the rhetoric we use and the way we go out to consult. I am concerned that the hon. Member is picking that up in his constituency; I have certainly had constituents reach out to me with concerns about welfare changes. It is incumbent on all of us to listen to that, to appreciate where the proposals are coming from and to try to find a common ground. We absolutely can do that in this case and in the case of PIP changes.

Above all, for me, this is about fairness. Everybody deserves the dignity of meaningful work, and everyone benefits when talent is not wasted. Autistic people have so much to offer, whether in science, like Einstein, in conservation, like Chris Packham, or in the day-to-day workplaces that keep our communities and economy running. The Government have already taken important steps, creating the independent panel, ensuring that work coaches have access to autism-specific training and providing disability employment advisors to offer specialist guidance, but the real test will be whether those reforms can deliver change on the ground in job centres, interviews and workplaces.

In the shortest line possible, everyone benefits when talent is nurtured, not wasted. My ask is that the insights of the new independent panel are coupled with autism-specific training, so that constituents such as mine and thousands of others across the country can finally see the promises of inclusion turn into the practical support they need to succeed in work.

Adoption Breakdown

Debate between Josh Newbury and Tom Gordon

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tom Gordon]

The hon. Member is exactly right and puts her point eloquently. Far too often, families and children are left waiting, which causes additional pressures that can lead to adoption breakdown, so I completely agree with her. As I said, while the early stages of adoption may involve training and some resources, the ongoing assistance tends to dwindle.

I applied for this debate after meeting some of my constituents at a regular surgery. Ian and Verity experienced this issue at first hand when their adopted child began exhibiting violent behaviour. When they reached out for help, they were shocked to discover just how little was available to them. Unfortunately, like many services, post-adoption support has become a postcode lottery. Available services are often fragmented, underfunded and difficult to access, leaving parents without the necessary help to manage the challenges.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. As he knows, I am an adoptive parent and a foster carer. In the run-up to this debate, I had the opportunity to speak to the social worker who is supporting me and my husband with what we hope will become our second adoption, and I would like to get the hon. Gentleman’s view on some of the things she mentioned: the importance of having better access to more holistic support in schools; closer working between psychologists and adoption teams to maximise the use of the adoption and special guardian support fund; therapeutic life story workers to work with children and families, particularly those at greater risk of breakdown; and greater training in social work courses on key issues, such as early trauma and attachment, to widen the knowledge across the workforce and ensure that a wider range of teams can support adoptive families when they come across them. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such measures would go a long way towards keeping adoptive families together?