Sewage

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

First, I should declare an interest: I have close relatives working in the water sector, although in science rather than in the water industry. I rise to speak in favour of the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and other Ministers. Our rivers have suffered from serious sewage pollution over many years and I am pleased the Government are now taking action to address this terrible problem. I want to discuss the nature of the action and to raise some important constituency matters.

As we have heard this afternoon, for far too long water companies have ignored residents’ concerns and continued to pump sewage into our rivers, lakes and seas. Reading is particularly badly affected because it is downstream of many of the pumping outlet stations further up the Thames, as colleagues from the Thames valley area have hinted at.

I strongly support the measures taken in the Government’s Water (Special Measures) Act, which tackles the issue. The legislation received Royal Assent on 24 February, and introduces tough new penalties, including imprisonment for water company executives when companies fail to co-operate or when they obstruct investigations. Notably, it also bans bonuses for CEOs and senior leaders within such companies unless high environmental standards are met, consumers are protected and the company is financially resilient. The Act ensures that each emergency sewage overflow outlet is independently monitored, which is an important step forward. That will make it quicker and easier for regulators to investigate and punish wrongdoing. The measures will increase transparency by requiring water companies to publish real-time data for all emergency overflows in England—again, a clear and important step forward.

We heard earlier—my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) from the Select Committee mentioned further details—that the Government have commissioned the Cunliffe review, which is another important step forward in tackling these problems. It will look in much greater detail at how companies are held to account for non-compliance and at a number of other matters.

I am conscious of time, but I would like to raise some local examples of sewage pollution and other matters related to waterways in the Reading area. I have seen—as I spoke about during the debate on the water Bill—some appalling incidents of sewage pollution in my area, including seeing a tributary of the Thames turn a lurid green after a sewage incident in Hampshire, which fed into Foudry brook, which is a tributary of the Kennet, which ultimately flows into the Thames.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

On Friday, I will be testing the water quality in Christchurch harbour because we need a conservation policy there, as suggested by the Christchurch Harbour and Marine Society. I am also concerned about the River Stour in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Environment Agency could set higher standards for water quality and, in so doing, help to establish the data that shows where areas are falling short? I am particularly concerned about the River Stour, but I know he too will have rivers that he is concerned about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Rodda]

I would of course like to see further work carried out by all agencies. My hon. Friend makes a good point about the river in his constituency. In my own constituency, there are a number of rivers, including the Thames and the Kennet. Many flow through heavily populated areas and places where people enjoy walks by the river, and—as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) mentioned—rowing, swimming, sailing and many other activities.

I have also seen the way that sewage pollution can interfere with wildlife. In one case, I saw the stark and appalling contrast of visible pollution in the river—foam from sewage and other nitrate pollution—next to a kingfisher. It is sad to see the way that these beautiful rivers are polluted by appalling outflows.

[Sean Woodcock]

Like me, my hon. Friend will receive hundreds of emails and bits of correspondence on the performance of Thames Water. Does he agree that that company in particular should take the Act as if they were being put on notice and that further action may follow if necessary to improve standards?

[Matt Rodda]

My hon. Friend is right on cue and entices me to the next area I want to talk about, which is the general problems with Thames Water. Those of us who represent constituencies in the Thames Water area know that it is an appalling company. I do not want to criticise individual members of staff—the head office is in my constituency and many local people work hard there—but, in my experience, the company is poorly managed.

I was going to mention a number of other incidents, including two where water was cut off to large parts of Reading’s suburbs and where residents are still waiting for compensation. I have had to write to Ofwat to ask it to investigate. I have had other incidents, including the creation of a sinkhole due to a water leak, which has caused severe distress to residents; I appreciate that that is not sewage, but it is part of the wider water provision network, so I hope that it is in the scope. In this case, residents are having to wait for concrete to be pumped into the chalk in order for the road next to their homes to be stabilised. I have seen a series of wider problems with flooding and other concerns about watercourses not being maintained.

[Tom Hayes]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Matt Rodda]

Of course.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The time limit has been reached. The hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) ought to have concluded his remarks rather than taken another intervention from the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes).