Water Bill

Meg Hillier Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 28th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) on introducing the Bill. Whatever my position on its detail and on the history of what has happened with our water industry, we would all agree on how important it is to have a proper debate about water.

Unlike many of the Members present today, I have the privilege of having served in the previous Parliament, during which water and sewage discharge were constant topics of conversation. It is absolutely right that we talk about that and that we act. I am now proud to be in the party of a Government who have begun to act on the big challenges facing us when it comes to water.

I congratulate my hon. Friend, too, on the enormous passion that he brings to all the issues that he cares about. Nobody could say that he does not believe passionately in what he is talking about today. He is right to shine a light on the failures of the water industry—the profits that people are making while organisations such as Surfers Against Sewage have to deal with the very real issue of paddling through sewage. I am trying to be polite.

We have to go right back in time to see why the system was set up. The water companies were privatised to avoid taxpayer investment and to get the private sector to pay. That of course meant the need for dividends, and we have seen how that has worked. My hon. Friend talked about the last chance saloon—“Two strikes and you’re out”—for the water companies. His Bill suggests that on the second occasion, the state would take the company’s assets and run it, but the taxpayer would still pick up an enormous bill for that.

It is important to reflect on the context that we find ourselves in today, whether we are talking about investment in water, our railways, the 700,000 pupils in schools not fit for purpose, or in our crumbling hospitals—including the 40 built with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, which I visited during the last Parliament. Those will be unfit for purpose within the next five years and need money to be invested in them.

We need to invest money in our roads. It is great that the Government are putting money into potholes—that is a start. However, we know that we need more than that. I cycle, and potholes cause me enormous grief. I am constantly breaking a spoke. A spoke is only about £1.50, but getting a wheel trued—I am not expert enough to do that myself—costs a lot of money. These are issues that are actually hitting the pockets of our constituents. It is not about me; many people have these problems.

I have had the opportunity to spend a lot of time in Northamptonshire, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and Rushden (Gen Kitchen), who has fought a tough campaign against potholes in her constituency, underlining how poorly the council has managed its roads. She has done excellent work to highlight the problems and to challenge and look at the council’s contracts, and that has led to the Government’s announcement in just the last week about investing in potholes—they have taken her blueprint from Wellingborough and are applying it to the country.

However, all this costs money. We have roads, railways, the water industry, schools and hospitals all in dire need. We need that money to go into the NHS to reduce waiting lists, which have reduced for five months in a row. We are seeing those waiting lists go down. Constituents of mine were in desperate straits—anyone who had a bit of money was paying privately to have their hip replaced. The constituents I visited who did not have that kind of money were on a long, slow waiting list while their health deteriorated, unable to work or go about their lives.

We have to see this issue in the context of all the money that needs to be spent. A year ago, I produced a list of what I call the big nasties. I have highlighted some of them. The list also includes the fact that we have not yet in this country decommissioned a single nuclear submarine, which is not just a monetary cost. It needs to be done, but we are finding it hard to bring submarines into port to repair them. It has been left for decades, and has now fallen to this Government to resolve. I gather that the first one is now being decommissioned—thanks, again, to a Labour Government being in power.

We have real problems at the animal health centre in Weybridge, where we do not have space to deal with two zoonotic diseases at the same time. To deal with these difficult diseases, the centre has special facilities so that no contaminants can escape. If we were hit by two zoonotic diseases in this country, we would be in a catastrophic situation. This situation was left by the previous Government, who did not deal with it for 14 years.

Then we have Porton Down. In 2017, it was going to be moved and rebuilt. Again, the facility deals with some of the most difficult scientific issues; there could be catastrophic effects if it was not there to deal with them. What has happened? There has been no movement at all. Again, it has fallen to this Government to spend something. Around £700 million had been spent, but nothing had been achieved. This Government have picked up the pieces.

[Clive Lewis]

I thank my hon. Friend for making a powerful speech in this debate. There are a few things to say about the costs. First, we would control the assets. The assets would come off the balance sheet, which would be one mitigating factor. Secondly, throughout the post-war period, with British Leyland, Railtrack in 1945, coal, steel, gas, civil aviation and even the Bank of England, we paid less than the market value. As I explained at the beginning, this is about a mindset. We can do an audit of what the companies have taken out —what money they have extracted from our economy— and then we can pay them an appropriate rate and return. It may well be that they are paid nothing, but they may get something. Their creditors may take a haircut, but, frankly, that is better than our constituents taking a continuous haircut with their bills.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I hear his passion and his helpful iteration of those historic examples. However, I would also say that we need to be clear about who the shareholders are—very often, they are our pension funds. Pension fund trustees have a fiduciary duty to ensure they are maximising the income for those pensioners. If that does not happen, we know that, effectively, the taxpayer picks up the tab. A reality of privatisation was a drive to have a shareholder society. We can argue about whether that was the right or wrong thing to do, and I think we would probably agree in many respects on that. However, that is the reality of the situation now.

Earlier today, before the House was sitting, I was on a call about constituents who had lost money in an investment and are in a desperate situation. In that case, it was because of criminal activity by a fraudster. Their life savings have gone. The people who have invested and bought those shares, often very humble families who have worked hard all their lives, need some compensation. A student debating society might be tempted to say, “Let’s take it all back, and forget about the impact,” but we cannot forget about the impact, because it often falls on low-paid, hard-working people who are taxpayers too—they would end up paying a double whammy.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I thank the Chair of the Treasury Committee for her wise words about the risks that shareholders take when they invest. Has she considered the alternative? At the moment, we are talking about privatisation versus nationalisation, but the alternative is mutualisation, where a water company’s customers would own and control the company on their own behalf.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

It seems there are an awful lot of mind readers in the Chamber today, because the hon. Gentleman anticipates my comments. I am proud to be a Labour and Co-operative Member, so I have thoughts on how, one day, we may be able to move to that nirvana of co-ownership.

We have seen too often that dividends and bonuses are paid without investment in infrastructure, which is where my hon. Friend and I would agree. We have a privatisation model that was supposed to deliver investment on the back of people investing in shares. In return for getting a dividend, there would also be an investment, but we have not seen enough of that.

Of course, under Ofwat rules, water customers bear a share of the cost. In Hackney, under Thames Water, which has been a poster company for the problems in this sector, bills are going up by more than a third. A number of constituents who are very worried about their water bills have written to me just in the last fortnight. When we talk about money in this place, we sometimes talk about millions or billions of pounds, but £100 a month is a great deal of money for many of my constituents.

To set that in context, I have a number of fantastic street markets in my constituency—ones where people can buy fruit and veg, and clothes and underwear at a reasonable price—and I also have the lovely Broadway market, where sourdough bread costs about £5 a loaf. I have constituents who do not have £5 left at the end of the week, let alone at the end of the month—those are the margins that people are working with. Water bills are therefore a significant issue, which is another reason why I am delighted to be here today, supported by colleagues of all parties who want to talk about the challenges of water.

On the face of it, the argument for nationalisation sounds appealing to many, but there is a cost—and it is not a hidden cost: to those who bought shares in good faith, to those pension funds that are investing, and in the upheaval of turning around these companies. Where would we get the people to run a nationalised water company? It is likely to be the same executives, if they would take the pay cut. There is not a wealth of expertise.

I spent a decade examining the work of Whitehall, and there are some excellent civil servants in this country who have done amazing work—many of the civil servants who did not do such amazing work appeared before the Public Accounts Committee—but finding somebody overnight with the technical and management expertise to run a major water company is a challenge.

To take the corollary, I am passionate about seeing insourced services in our hospitals, but after having intense conversations with executives at my local hospital, I know that, when the public sector has not done something for many years, it takes a very long time to build up the expertise. Let us take catering. If hospitals do not cater well, they could kill patients, so they need to make sure they have the management structure in place to deliver those skills. It is the same with water companies—it is not as easy as saying, “One day it’s private, and the next day it’s national. No problem at all.” The upheaval would be immense, so we need a measured plan, and I think this Government have begun to develop that plan, for all the reasons I will outline.

I will talk a little about what the Government will do to improve the situation, and then I will talk about the Bill, but I want first to touch on the comments of the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer). I am very interested in her passionate commitment to citizens’ juries. She has been elected, which is a privilege as we all know, to represent her constituents in this place, yet months after her election, she wants to pass responsibility for this big, difficult decision to a citizens’ jury, rather than taking responsibility for that decision as an elected MP.

[Ellie Chowns]

I think it is important to correct the misapprehension among some Government Members, which may arise from an inadvertent misreading of the Bill. Clause 4, on the citizens’ assembly on water ownership, at subsection (4), simply says:

“The Commission must publish the recommendations of the Citizens’ Assembly.”

It does not say, “This House will hereby delegate responsibility for making decisions about water sector ownership to the Citizens’ Assembly.” It simply suggests setting up a structure, which, as I said, has already been used by the House to provide the opportunity for the general public to consider in depth an issue of complexity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Meg Hillier]

My point is clear. Just as, many years ago, a certain Mr Ratner famously talked about the price of a prawn sandwich in Marks & Spencer and the price of earrings in his store, people do not want to be on the board of Marks & Spencer to get a decent prawn sandwich; they just want to be able to buy a decent prawn sandwich, and while my political foundations are in devolution, neighbourhood structures, working and listening to people, ultimately we must responsibility ourselves.

I am looking at clause 4, as the hon. Lady highlighted. I have been around for many years, but one of the challenges about citizens’ juries is that while we can have this engagement, they are lengthy and costly, and we know that not everybody attends the whole time. How would we select people? There are many challenges in setting them up.

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[Ellie Chowns]

I remind the House briefly that all these issues are well investigated and understood, and the House has previously used this mechanism effectively.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Well, in my experience of 20 years in the House, this system has been used once, and that was in 2019, by a selection of Select Committees, not by the Government of the day. I am aware that the first debates about citizens’ juries were 30 or so years ago, and there are many challenges to delivering them.

[Mark Ferguson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the concerns with citizens’ assemblies is about gaining the confidence of the public? When some people see opinion polls, they say, “Well, I wasn’t interviewed, so I have no confidence in it.” Secondly, there would be no power to compel someone to be on a citizens’ assembly, so how could people have confidence in a body that contains only those who were willing to take part?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Absolutely. I think we would all agree that we talk all the time to constituents, whether on doorsteps or at public meetings and other forums, because that is our job. I say to constituents every week when I am on their doorsteps, “I am here because I need your expertise. I can’t do my job without you.” But it is a cumbersome task to be on a citizens’ assembly as it requires people to devote a great deal of time, and only a certain subset of society has the time to do that. Many of my constituents are working three or four jobs and struggling to survive. They do not have the time to do that, but their voices need to be heard, too.

[Ellie Chowns]

I declare experience in this area in that, through Herefordshire council, I set up a citizens’ assembly. A process called sortition is used to ensure a fully representative sample. Participants are paid for their time so that people of all socioeconomic backgrounds can participate, and additional efforts are made to ensure that under-represented groups can participate. Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that such an institution might be more representative of the general public than this House, in which two thirds of MPs were elected by only a third of the electorate?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I will be careful not to try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker. We could have an endless debate about the difference between selecting people through the sortition process—I am well aware of how that works—and how our electoral system works, but, in the end, we face our electorate, and they can reject us. Many colleagues have been sacked on television at 4 o’clock in the morning because the electorate rejected them or their party. There is no same power over a citizen’s assembly.

Let us be clear. Perhaps I should talk in a bit more detail about clause 4 of the Bill as proposed. Subsection (1) says:

“Within four months of being established under subsection (3), the Commission on Water must establish a Citizens’ Assembly on Water Ownership…to…consider different models of water ownership, and…make recommendations for reforms to water ownership and governance.”

[Neil Coyle]

It is deeply patronising to suggest to my constituents that they would be guaranteed the same job after serving on a citizens’ assembly. We cannot force or compel McDonald’s to retain people on zero-hours contracts, which, thankfully, the Government will scrap. But is it not typical of the Green party to shirk responsibility to a citizens’ assembly? On housing, wind farms and onshore energy, we see the Green party shirking responsibilities in Bristol, Brighton and the east of England, and this similar situation is a classic example.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I certainly recognise the point about job security. Many of my constituents work three or four jobs and are struggling to survive.

[Dawn Butler]

I would like to inform the House that the Employment Rights Bill outlaws exploitative zero-hours contracts, and that is something that Members—especially Government Members—should talk about constantly.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Absolutely, and that is a yet another example of why it is good to have a Labour Government.

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting clause 4(1)(a), in particular. I was quite disappointed by the response from the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) to my very sincere intervention. I think we have heard that many Members have made their minds up about the form of ownership, and they are determined to have nationalisation. So if the citizens’ assembly came to a conclusion that was not in favour of nationalisation, I would have to ask people whether they agreed with the citizens’ assembly—in which case, what is the point of this House?—or whether they would ignore the citizens’ assembly, in which case, what is the point of the citizens’ assembly?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

That is one of the challenges: we can set up this lengthy and expensive process and then it does not necessarily hold any sway.

I was going through the provisions in clause 4, and as we get into the details of the citizens’ assembly, I sense that there is an appetite to discuss that. Perhaps I can continue my remarks before I take any further interventions, or we will be here all day—but I suppose that that is what today is for. The commission would support the work of the citizens’ assembly. Clause 4(2) states that

“the Commission on Water must undertake a public consultation on water ownership in which all individuals who use water and sewerage services in England and Wales can participate.”

Hallelujah to that—to a strong, well-founded public consultation! We can all go out to our constituencies and do roundtables, knock on doors and ask people what they have to say about water. However, I think that most of us have had quite a strong indication about that from our constituents, in our mailboxes and from our time on doorsteps—I have not got into all the issues in the waterways in Hackney, which are utterly appalling in relation to sewage discharge. We need to make sure that we have that public consultation.

[Carla Denyer]

If the hon. Member is so aware of the overwhelming public support for public ownership of water, as she just indicated from the level of concern in her constituency, I am confused about why she is so dogged in her pursuit of continued privatisation.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I urge the hon. Lady to listen to what I say. I did not say that I had people saying overwhelmingly that they wanted public ownership—certainly not. They are saying that there is a problem, and saying, “You lot are in government. You need to sort it out.” Over the last 20 years that I have been in this place, and particularly in the last Parliament, there has been endless discussion about how to resolve this situation, and stasis in the Government. We now have a Government who have acted to begin to tackle some of these huge challenges. I give real credit to the Minister, who has engaged massively with Members across the House on this. She is absolutely aware of the issues, partly because many of us across the House have lobbied her, because our constituents have lobbied us. I do not think there is doubt about the problem; the issue is about the solution.

We should absolutely have a big public consultation, but that is to inform the work of the citizens’ assembly. Clause 4(3) states that the citizens’ assembly must

“be composed of a randomly selected representative sample of users of water and sewerage services in England and Wales, and…consider any matters which the Commission refers to it in relation to water ownership.”

I want to be clear that that will be a randomly selected representative sample of users, and the Bill is silent on the model. I appreciate what the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) highlighted—that there is a science to doing this—but the Bill is silent on how it would be done.

[Mark Ferguson]

To return to the construction of citizens’ assemblies, I take on board the point about the concept that is being used locally, but when one has to travel 10 minutes to a meeting on an evening after work, it is a very different order of magnitude—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before the hon. Lady responds to that intervention, I know it is Friday but you do not intervene on an intervention, and interventions are short. They are not speeches.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I think my hon. Friend makes some important points. We have seen from citizens’ juries, including in Ireland, which has a well-worn route for using these for their referenda, that people do drop out and do not always attend, because life gets in the way. That is why we are elected: to make hard decisions and defend difficult issues. We cannot make the world like the land of milk and honey—certainly not after the inheritance we received from the last Government after 14 years of mismanagement.

We have very big challenges and we need to tackle them. It would put heavy pressure on citizens’ juries to do that. The key point here is that, whatever the best practice, the Bill does not go into the detail of it, so we cannot assume that the good practice that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire has highlighted from her constituency is necessarily what would apply—let alone the challenges that other hon. Members have raised.

Turning to the hon. Member for Bristol Central, I would be surprised that a member of her party is so willing to pass responsibility over, but then I look at what happened in Brighton when the Greens controlled Brighton council. I will put aside the rubbish collection issue and the infighting and look at the issue with the i360—the tower that is now a tourist attraction. The company behind it went bust with over £50 million of debt. It was the Green-run council that provided £36 million of public money to pay for that vanity project, and in the end taxpayers in Brighton and Hove were left £51 million out of pocket and Brighton and Hove council were left to pay £2 million a year for the foreseeable future.

I do not think we need to take any lectures from the Green party about how to manage public money, because when they have been in power, they cannot do it. No wonder they want to pass responsibility over to a citizens’ jury rather than take responsibility themselves.

I have been diverted, but I think it was useful. Before I move on to my next point, I will take one more diversion.

[Neil Coyle]

It is not just the Green party in this country that causes such significant challenges. The demands of the Green party in Germany on the then-Government to stop using nuclear energy directly contributed to the reliance on Putin, and Germany is struggling as a result today. The Greens should not be trusted with any economy anywhere.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not want to try your patience, so I will move on from the Green party, because the subject of the debate is the Water Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South has put forward.

I want to talk about the challenges that we are seeing in water. Nobody would argue that there is not a problem we are having to deal with. I take the example of my wonderful constituency of Hackney South and Shoreditch and the amazing resource that is the River Lea. It runs through my constituency, starting further up beyond London. We do not have the figures for 2024 yet, but in 2023 there were 1,060 instances of sewage discharge into the River Lea. That amounted to 11,502 hours of sewage discharge from storm overflows. If that is not bad enough, it is almost double the figure from 2022, when sewage was discharged into the River Lea for 5,891 hours. It has been getting worse. We have been raising this issue in the House, and in the last Parliament not enough happened to tackle it. Now, thank goodness, we have a Labour Government who are beginning to act and make sure that water companies are taken into account.

The water quality of the Lea has had a damning assessment: an overall classification of bad, failing on chemical standards and bad ecological health. It is a tragedy that we worked so hard to get our waterways cleaned up during the run-up to the 2012 Olympics, which was a major boost to east London, but we now have bad ecological health.

On a hot, sunny day on Hackney Marshes—sadly no longer in my constituency after the boundary changes —people can be seen swimming in the river, and that is not a place they should be swimming. It is one of the most polluted rivers in the country, but it should be a blue lung for east Londoners. We need to get this problem tackled.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Member is making an important point about river pollution, and she is absolutely right. Would she agree that there is also a planning issue? There are too many paved spaces, and not enough run-off is available to go into the ground water. We need a holistic approach that includes much more assertive planning policies on drainage. Otherwise, we end up with sewage in our rivers during periods of heavy rainfall.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that—I say “Friend” because the right hon. Gentleman and I served very effectively together in Islington when he was the MP and I was a junior councillor for eight years in his patch, so I know his passion in this area.

On run-offs, it is interesting that some councils are still behind on planning issues, so in some areas people are still allowed to pave over their front gardens, and in others they are expected to put in blocks for the tyres of vehicles, with drain-aways or soakaways around them. We need much more of that. I have been involved in that debate for 30 years, and the right hon. Gentleman has been involved for even longer—I bow to his experience—yet we still see challenges in the planning system not allowing for that. We await the full detail of the planning changes, but I really welcome the Government’s move to look at planning differently, ensuring that we are building this sort of resilience into our areas.

We have small areas of flood risk in my constituency, around the Lea valley, so we need to ensure, if it is appropriate to build homes there, that we manage that risk through some of these mitigations. That is very important, because what also happens is that rubbish is washed down from the streets to the canal side—we have just talked about the River Lea—and many of my canal dwellers are concerned, as I am sure are the right hon. Gentleman’s, about the rubbish that has to be collected.

Research by Thames21 and University College London shows that the amount of faecal E. coli bacteria in the River Lea regularly exceeds international standards. It pains me to have to say this, because I love my constituency and think that part of my job is to big it up and tell everyone the great things about it, but sometimes we just have to call out the problems, unfortunately, and this is a real concern.

My constituency is served by Thames Water, of course. Thames Water discharged sewage into the Thames for more than 300,000 hours in 2024, but what is really shocking is that only four years earlier sewage was discharged for just under 19,000 hours—18,443 hours. We thought that was bad and it has exponentially increased, and there is 50% more sewage than in 2023 when sewage was discharged into the Thames for 196,000 hours. London is an international city; it is unbelievable that our river is so dirty and we need to get this resolved.

Nationally, none of our rivers is considered to be in good chemical health according to the Rivers Trust. That means every river in England contains chemicals that are known to cause harm, and figures published just yesterday by the Environment Agency revealed that untreated sewage, including human waste, wet wipes and condoms, was released into waterways for more than 3.62 million hours in 2024. In 2016—just eight years before that data—the comparable figure was 100,533 hours. We are seeing a really big deterioration, and that is why we need to act. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Minister about some of the actions the Government are taking to tackle this.

If sewage on its own is not a reason to look at how we tackle water, the problem of security of supply is a very big concern. I had the privilege of chairing the Public Accounts Committee for nine years, having also served on the Committee for longer, and in 2020 we found that there is a serious risk that the country will run out of water in the next 20 years. We were not a Committee that tended to use hyperbole; we were looking at the facts. We would build our reports on work by the National Audit Office, and we would question witnesses about it. The timescale for that risk was 20 years, so we are already five years into that programme. My hon. Friend the Minister and the Government face a great challenge to try and resolve this in such a short time, because 15 years is not as long as it seems when we are dealing with such big issues.

Security of supply is threatened by increasing demand and diminishing supply. Relevant factors of course include population growth in parts of the country, and urbanisation and development. The point of how we deal with this in planning has been raised and it is absolutely vital that water supply is built into new developments and the new towns the Government are proposing and all the housing developments that we hope to see.

Climate change has obviously been a factor as well, as is unsustainable abstraction when water is removed from the natural environment. I will not try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the issue of chalk streams in this country is a scandal, and once damaged they are gone forever. We have been raping our environment for water company profit and that has to stop. We have also seen growth in water-intensive industries such as data centres, which are causing issues for electricity but also for water, and we need a proper planning process for that. So a lot of this does come back to the Government’s stance in taking a genuinely proactive approach, making sure that planning is not a blocker but actually helps deliver the solutions we need.

In 2022, the Government updated Ofwat’s strategic policy statement to include an objective for the regulator to “increase resilience” in the long term. In 2024, the national infrastructure commission recommended that the Government and Ofwat ensure that water companies’ plans were sufficient to increase water supplies to meet demand for an additional 4,800 megalitres per day by 2050. The numbers are all very well, but we know there is a big challenge now.

The Government will be publishing an updated national framework for water in the summer—I do not think my hon. Friend the Minister ever gets a holiday, with the amount of work that she has to do. Basically, we have water, but not in the places that we need it. We have not built a reservoir for decades. As a child of the 1976 drought—unbelievable, but true—I remember the impact that had on behaviour. In my case, we did not have standpipes in the street, but many families in this country had to go with a bottle to a standpipe in the street to get their water. Water is always a precious commodity, but we really learned that then. We were told not to leave the tap running when washing up or cleaning our teeth. I do not want to lecture people, but we should all keep to those habits. I learned those habits about water preservation at the age of seven—I will admit it—and they have never left me. That was a serious crisis in 1976, but here we are in 2025, facing many of the same challenges. I do not envy my hon. Friend the Minister for the challenges she is seeking to address.

The Government are acting. The Water (Special Measures) Act has been introduced and includes, quite properly, criminal liability for water executives. They cannot hide behind the corporate body and say it was someone else’s fault; we have to have people stepping up. In over a decade on the Public Accounts Committee, I learned that failure is always an orphan. We used to call it “public accounts tennis”. We would say, “Who was in charge? Who was responsible?” and people would all look at each other, waiting to see who would jump forward. Introducing criminal liability sounds draconian, and it is, but it is vital that those who are heading up operations of this importance, and being paid the pay that they are to deliver them, take real responsibility and ensure they have systems in place in their organisations. If the buck stops with them, they will take it very seriously. The criminal liability includes imprisonment for water executives when companies fail to co-operate or obstruct investigations.

The Act also introduces a bonus ban for chief executives and senior leaders unless high standards are met on protecting the environment, consumers and financial resilience. We can talk more about Thames Water in relation to that in a moment. It also introduces automatic penalties for environmental pollution. It ensures that pollution is being measured in real time, because during the last Parliament it was discovered that, for all the talk about measuring sewage, it was not being measured in real time. A lot of the indicators were not there, so it was easy to dodge the real numbers that we are now seeing with the exponential increase in sewage discharge.

The Act introduces an independent water commission as a regulator, which I welcome. The commission was launched in October last year and is chaired by the former deputy governor of the Bank of England, Sir Jon Cunliffe. It is intended to deliver a reset to the sector and is expected to be the biggest review of the water industry since privatisation. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South, who introduced the Bill today, that the commission will be the platform for discussions about the future. Tempting as it may be for him to want to get his Bill passed today, it would not deliver in the timeframe that he would want it to, as that would take a while. Let us take a measured stand and look closely at the independent commission—as I have warned my hon. Friend the Minister, I will be watching it very closely and asking questions about it—because we need to see that overview from every angle. Sir Jon Cunliffe is an independent individual who will be very tough with the Government on this issue.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has criticised the proposal for citizens’ assemblies, saying that we should have the confidence to make political judgments in this House for the future of our water companies. Will she explain why she supports having an independent water commission but does not support the proposal for citizens’ assemblies?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I will not repeat all of the issues about people’s attendance at a citizens’ assembly—the difficulty of achieving it and of people coming to it. I am not sure whether Sir Jon Cunliffe is being paid to do the job—quite often people are not—but he has been given time to devote to it, and also has access to a lot of technical expertise and data. I have spent more than a decade looking at these sorts of reviews and how they collect information. They have powers to receive that information and the expertise to analyse it. I have had the privilege of working with the National Audit Office for a long period of time, and I know the level of expertise that goes into analysing that information, which is quite intense and immense, especially when we are dealing with money, infrastructure and water.

[Clive Lewis]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I will give way one final time.

[Clive Lewis]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I will be very brief. There is a crisis of democracy, and as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) has just mentioned, we are rejecting a citizens’ assembly. Such an assembly could have the technical support and technical capacity as well, but it would give a voice to the public. Instead, we have decided to give that voice to Sir Jon Cunliffe, a lifelong Treasury insider who works in the City of London and who will make a decision based on its interests. Can she not see the problem here, and the lack of confidence the public have in the democratic decisions that are being taken by people like that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend is being particularly personal about Sir Jon Cunliffe. I have to say that I have not met him, but the point is that he will not be making the decisions; they will go to Ministers.

I am aware that time is marching on, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I would like to say briefly that there are six key areas in which the commission is seeking views. That is the point—it is not just Sir Jon Cunliffe. I will rattle through those key areas and then sit down. They are the strategic management of water; the overarching regulatory system; economic regulation; environmental and drinking water regulation; water company ownership models; and asset health and supply chains. Each of those areas contains a degree of technical challenge. Any of us, and any of our constituents—I hope we are all asking our constituents to contribute to this process—can put in, but there will be a lot of technical experts in those areas that will also need to provide input. Sir Jon Cunliffe will then have to put that to Ministers.

Another point is that Ministers do not have to accept what Sir Jon says, but if they want to go into any of it in more detail, my hon. Friend the Minister would presumably have the power—of course she has the power; she is the Minister—to seek further information. I am aware that when commissions are set up badly, they can be a problem for Government, but this is a very thorough approach, which is the right approach after all these years of privatisation and the recent extensive challenges, particularly with sewage discharges.

It is easy to think that we can just rush in and sort this out, but we need to do it in a measured way. I am always impatient—we all get elected to make change tomorrow—but I have looked at failed projects for over a decade. If we rush in and do not plan right, we spend more money and it often results in failure. I could list those projects, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will try your patience no further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

I warmly invite the hon. Member to read up about how citizens’ assemblies work, how the sampling works and how participation is facilitated for all people, and about the time commitment. The citizens’ assembly previously established by this House was over three weekends in Birmingham. These are not huge commitments, but they are a valuable mechanism for ensuring that the public have the time to consider an issue in depth.

I want to raise three points on this important Bill. First, I could not agree more with the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) that the privatisation of water has been an absolute disaster. We have seen soaring bills, soaring executive pay, soaring dividends and soaring siphoning of finance out of our country into the pockets of private interests, while at the same time our infrastructure has crumbled and our rivers have become increasingly polluted. It is long past time to resolve this national disgrace.

My Green colleagues and I believe that public ownership is a core part of the solution, but it is not the only solution. We have to ensure that the water system is adequately regulated, so that whoever is in charge sticks to the rules, does not make profits on the back of pollution and does not pump sewage into our rivers—that is fundamental and essential.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

How does the hon. Lady propose to pay them for running the water system? We all agree there are problems, but in the current climate, where would she get the money from to pay for this to happen?

[Ellie Chowns]

I refer the hon. Lady to my previous comments on the merits of citizens’ assemblies in considering the details over many dozens of hours. I also refer to my party’s manifesto.

Secondly, climate change is a systemic challenge. I am glad that some hon. Members have mentioned this and that it is included in the text of the Bill because, as the hon. Member for Norwich South said, it is a huge problem when there is too little water. Too much water is also a huge problem, and that problem is increasing.

I have already spoken several times in this House about flooding in my constituency. Climate change is making these challenges more frequent and more severe, so any Water Bill needs to address not only the water industry, water supply and sewage, but also climate change and its interactions with water. I am pleased that is mentioned in the Bill.

Another topic mentioned by the Bill, somewhat briefly, is perhaps even closer to my heart—and certainly close to my constituency. Indeed, as I put my hand to my heart, I feel the jewellery I am wearing, which represents the River Wye. Pollution is the elephant in the room in how this issue is currently being tackled. Pollution comes not only from sewage but from agricultural run-off. Nearly three quarters of the pollution in my constituency is from agricultural run-off. There has been a planning moratorium across almost all of my constituency for more than five years, with devastating economic effects. Tackling the water industry will not address this. Indeed, the majority of my constituency is served by the only non-profit water company in the UK.

The problem we face is around pollution. I find it disappointing, even distressing, that although the conversation about water in this House has rightly focused on sewage, it has not focused sufficiently on tackling water pollution. As DEFRA figures and the Environmental Audit Committee’s report both show, half of the problem is from agricultural water pollution. Slightly more of our waterways are in bad condition because of agricultural pollution rather than sewage pollution. This is an issue that we need to tackle together, working in concert with farmers.

We need to support farmers, which is why I am so devastated by the direction in recent months, which has arguably been wrong. I am particularly upset that just a couple of weeks ago, the sustainable farming incentive was taken away from farmers without anything to replace it. We need a Government who work with farmers and support them to transition to nature-friendly farming, so that we can reduce the agricultural run-off that has such a devastating effect on our waterways.

The Government have this vital role to play in leadership. It is essential to tackle the failures of the privatised water industry, essential to tackle the outrageous volume of sewage overflows into our rivers and essential to tackle agricultural water pollution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) for giving us the opportunity to have this debate, which has ranged from fatbergs to Larkin. It really has been a pleasure. I also thank him for his service in Afghanistan and commend him for his oratory, which left my throat dry as he described the conditions in which he served.

One thing that my hon. Friend asked us to do—I had not expected this—was to consider what Mrs Thatcher would have done. That is not something I am usually asked, and I have to admit that she is not my usual touchstone when it comes to judgment. However, I am left unconvinced about the need for citizens’ assemblies and I suspect that the late Baroness Thatcher might have thought the same.

Among others, my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) and for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) and the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) talked about the state of our rivers. I would also like to touch on that in relation to the importance of rivers for biodiversity and recreation and our sense of identity. I represent a constituency bordered by a river, the River Tees—this is an opportunity for me to get on the record for Teessiders that the river is called the Tees, and not the Tee, as is often seen, so Teesside has a double E and a double S. The River Tees has indeed shaped the identity of the people of the region.

The town of Stockton has a 12th century tithe barn that was at the lower boundary of the palatinate of the diocese of Durham so that taxes could be collected easily from the Tees, but it was the emergence of steel, shipbuilding and chemicals during the latter half of the 19th century and the early 20th century that saw the growth of population and the formation of “Steel River”, as it was known, with 100 blast furnaces on the river. That led to such a serious level of pollution that by the 1970s the river was considered to be dead, with black spots. We certainly would not have wanted to step into it, never mind drink it. However, we have seen some real change since then, and have seen industry and the environment live side by side.

On the south side of the River Tees is the Redcar bulk terminal, one of only two in the country that can handle capesize vessels. The terminal was built during the canalisation of the river in the 19th century. There is a site of special scientific interest there, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), which was built on the limestone in the slag. It is the perfect environment for seals and birds. In my constituency, RSPB Saltholme is home to bitterns and the largest inland colony of common terns. It was built in an area surrounded by chemical works that extracted the salt from Saltholme, from the brine fields and salt caverns there; the caverns could even be used to support our hydrogen industry in the future.

The River Tees, once dead, is now regarded as exceptional for trout. A lot of that is due to the improvements made on the river, including the installation of a barrage in the mid-1990s. That has led to an explosion in recreation as well; there is dragon boat racing and all sorts of other water activities, including rowing. We have three vibrant rowing clubs on the Tees. I have done a little bit of competitive rowing in the past; my crew only ever won one race, and it was when the other team pulled up because they thought they had got past the finish line, and we very slowly pootled past them.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

A win is a win.

[Chris McDonald]

Indeed. It was very much a hare and tortoise situation, but I took the win.

One thing I learned from rowing is that you get intimately acquainted with the river on which you row, from head to toe. That is why I was quite shocked when a constituent of mine, Robert, told me that boat crews on their way back now often encounter sewage on the River Tees, a river that has been extremely clean. We need to think about the role of the water companies, but also about giving adequate support to the Canal and River Trust, which is frankly underfunded and struggles to afford the capital expenditure that is required to maintain our white water course and the quality of the River Tees. It needs revenue as well as capital support, so I call for that support. Sewage dumping on the Tees has increased by 37% in the past year. That is a real shame, as the town of Stockton is now turning towards the Tees; it has a new riverside park, and there has been investment in the area by local entrepreneurs.

The hon. Member for North Herefordshire mentioned that she has in her constituency the only water company in England that is not for profit—I thought that was a prerequisite for water companies nowadays. We need to see big changes in the water industry, but my reservations about citizens’ assemblies mean that I will not support the Bill. However, I would like us all to remember this point about identity and rivers. In the north-east, we have three great rivers: the Tyne, the Wear and the Tees, which define whether a person is a Geordie, a Mackem or a Smoggie. Our rivers have shaped industry and industry has shaped the rivers, but on the Tees at least, both the river and industry have shaped the people.