Water (Special Measures) Act 2025: Enforcement

Debate between Mims Davies and Emma Hardy

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) for securing this debate. I am particularly delighted he has done so today—great timing—since today we have published our new vision for water.

These are once-in-a-generation reforms to our water system, delivering tough oversight and real accountability, and putting an end to water company excuses. This Labour Government are doing away with water companies marking their own homework and are holding them firmly to account. From an MOT-style approach for water companies’ pipes and pumps to no-notice inspection powers, we are creating a system where customers get the service they deserve and bosses have nowhere to hide. We have already taken tough action on the worst performing water companies, while protecting customers by doubling compensation for those impacted by supply interruptions.

There are a few more treats included in today’s White Paper, among them a new chief engineer to bring technical expertise to the new regulator for the first time in 20 years; new performance improvement regimes, so that any water companies falling behind in finances, environmental standards, drinking water quality or operations will face tough consequences; and dedicated supervisory teams to replace the current one-size-fits-all approach and give the new single regulator a thorough understanding of how each company operates; no-notice inspections; mandatory water efficiency labelling; accelerated roll-out of smart meters; regional planning to bring together councils, water companies, farmers and developers to deliver joined-up plans to tackle river pollution, water resources and housing growth; and senior accountability to ensure water bosses are directly accountable for the service that customers receive.

[Mims Davies]

My constituents, particularly businesses, want clear understanding around compensation, but the area that interests me is the chief engineer role. The guidance that was given to her fellow Minister, the hon. Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh) before the recent 16,500-property outage in East Grinstead and the villages was that it would affect Sussex Weald and Crowborough. How can this new chief engineer help us to get South East Water to be clear about what is already going on?

[Emma Hardy]

I have huge sympathy and support for the hon. Lady and her constituents in the situation that they have faced in the last few weeks and I understand the urgent need for compensation, not just for her residents, but many of the neighbouring constituencies. She mentioned that it is the first time that Ofwat has ever done an investigation into whether a company is still complying with its licence to operate. It is looking at the customer part of the operation licence to see whether or not the company is complying; that is the first time that has ever been done. The Consumer Council for Water is visiting the Tunbridge Wells area to hear direct testimony from people about how they have been treated and how the situation has impacted them. I share the love expressed in the Chamber for the Drinking Water Inspectorate, particularly for Marcus Rink and all the work he does, and the inspectorate is looking carefully into that matter as well.

One of the things that we promised in the Water (Special Measures) Act were powerful new customer panels to ensure that customers are at the heart of company governance. Some first accountability sessions will be held in spring 2026, requiring customers’ views to be taken into account in company decision making and allowing those customers to hold companies to account—one of the many things that was in that Act.

While we are on the situation that the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) faced, I will mention the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), whom we spent rather a long time with over the last few weeks. It is outrageous; my heart sank when I saw Tunbridge Wells and its residents being impacted again after the awful situation that businesses faced in the run-up to Christmas. I am keen for them to receive compensation as quickly as possible. He is right to point out the concerns that we all had about the disinformation that was put out. The need for clear communication to everybody about what is happening is incredibly important.

There are many things from the water White Paper that I would like to highlight. I hope we get a chance in Parliament over the coming weeks to look at some of that in more detail. There is a section on debt at the bottom of page 26 of the White Paper that states:

“We will therefore consider how the regulator can work with companies and investors to ensure companies do not accumulate unmanageable levels of debt”.

There is a direct reference to debt in the White Paper. It is also worth pointing out what it says in the section called “Putting Customers First”. Page 31 mentions

“increasing public access to water for recreation and wellbeing”',

something that I know my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) is really interested in. That is because of the love that there is for the Tyne and how beautiful it is—we want to see people having access to it.

The White Paper mentions the powerful new customer panels as well, and also looks at regulators strengthening the “customer measure of experience”. That is one of the metrics used to judge water companies and we want to strengthen that metric of experience.

Another thing that comes up in debates on agricultural pollution is the effect that it has on the beautiful and stunning River Wye, and which I know is a huge source of concern for my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes). On page 35, we talk about how we will

“consult on reforms on how sewage sludge use in agriculture is regulated and whether this should be included in the Environmental Permitting Regime..”

One of the big focuses and challenges is what the difference would be, if these measures were all in place. One of the many key things is about prevention rather than cure—I know you will understand that analogy very well, Dr Allin-Khan. It is about getting companies to fix things before they break. Around the country, we have too many examples of things breaking before companies recognise that they should be fixed. The MOT work, the engineer and the resilience standards are all about understanding where the problems are and getting in there and fixing them first. Fundamentally, that is cheaper and better for customers, because it costs less to fix something before it breaks and creates a disaster somewhere.

Water Supplies: East Grinstead

Debate between Mims Davies and Emma Hardy

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the ongoing interruption to water supplies in East Grinstead and the surrounding villages and support for people affected.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

I would like to update the House on the ongoing water supply disruption across southern England, but before I do that, I pay tribute to my dad, David Mattinson, who passed away last Monday at Dove House hospice. I thank everybody at the hospice for the wonderful care they gave him. As a primary headteacher, he inspired so many people and was truly loved. He will be deeply missed by my sisters, my mum and me, and all who knew him. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I thank the nature Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), for covering me during my leave, and my friends and colleagues across the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. They met the chief executive of South East Water and numerous MPs last week and several times over the weekend. I really appreciate the teamwork and solidarity, so I thank them.

This is an unacceptable supply failure, particularly for residents in Tunbridge Wells, who face significant disruption for the second time in as many months. We are holding South East Water to account as the company responsible for the areas most affected. We have been clear in our daily meetings with the company that restoring supply must be the company’s absolute priority, that every possible measure must be taken to protect vulnerable customers, and that those affected must receive proper compensation for the disruption they have experienced.

Far too many people are unable to wash safely or have adequate sanitation in their homes. Far too many businesses are being affected. The supply issues in Kent and Sussex have been caused by several short-term factors, including a period of prolonged cold weather, which led to a large number of burst pipes and water mains across the network, and operational issues at water treatment sites caused by Storm Goretti. However, the disruption in the south-east comes against a backdrop of previous outages and continued poor performance by South East Water in maintaining a reliable service for its customers.

It is yet further evidence that the water system is broken. For too long, water companies have failed to maintain their infrastructure and build the resilience needed to withstand events like this. Customers are paying the price for years of under-investment, and the Government will fix this through our wholesale water reforms. Those include stronger rules on maintenance and resilience, backed by £104 billion of private investment for infrastructure upgrades and the creation of a new single powerful regulator.

[Mims Davies]

My condolences, Minister.

Again, we have no water across parts of Sussex and Kent. That is expected to continue at the very least until tomorrow in my area. Again, we have a shambolic response, with more than 16,000 households in East Grinstead, Ashurst Wood and some of my Wealden villages affected. Again, my constituents have been left with poor, misleading or no communication from South East Water, with too many vulnerable people—even those on the priority services register—left waiting. Again, we have livestock owners struggling to get water for their animals. Many businesses have shut, as have many schools and nurseries. Again, water bottle stations have been poorly organised, with little or no clear provision for hard-hit rural villages and areas, forcing residents to make long drives. There have been failures to open or stations running dry far too quickly, creating huge gridlock, frustration and anger. All this, unbelievably, coincides with East Grinstead train station serving as the terminus for Gatwick airport rail replacement buses, which demonstrates a complete lack of joined-up planning. The local resilience forums are in place, but the logistics are failing.

What penalties or sanctions will the water company face, and what level of compensation—which my constituents and, indeed, many other constituents deserve—will they actually receive? Given the numerous and repeated serious failings on the part of South East Water in just the last five years, does the Minister agree with me and with many others that South East Water urgently needs new leadership that is capable of addressing emergencies properly and, crucially, restoring much-needed confidence in the company’s ability to manage its systems, infrastructure and water supplies and to provide the service that is needed, now and in the future?

[Emma Hardy]

I am with the hon. Lady wholeheartedly. I completely understand the anger and frustration that she feels on behalf of her local residents who are once again experiencing problems with this company. As I have said, the short-term factor is the freeze and thaw, but the longer-term factors are the lack of resilience in the company and the fundamental problems that it has. We need to address that on a systemic basis: we need to set resilience standards, so that a maintenance system that is “fix on failure” becomes a proactive system.

The hon. Lady is right to raise the problems surrounding this company. It is already being investigated by the Drinking Water Inspectorate because of the earlier issues in Tunbridge Wells, and the inspectorate will conduct further investigations. I have met Ofwat representatives to discuss my concern about the company’s performance, and have asked them to look into whether it is meeting its obligations in respect of serving its customers.

Inclusive PPE

Debate between Mims Davies and Emma Hardy

Tuesday 12th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Mims Davies)]

May I start by congratulating the hon. Lady on securing such an important and interesting Adjournment debate? I would like to stress from the outset that the Government entirely support her assertion that personal protective equipment issued to workers should be inclusive and, of course, meet individual needs. The Government recognise that when we refer to “inclusive” in this context, it is not just a matter of gender, because the requirement covers disabilities, race and religion, which really emphasises the personal in PPE.

I understand the hon. Lady’s point about providers waking up to the anatomy of women, and I fully agree. The availability of Mary Earps’s World cup jersey was probably a bit too late for the hon. Lady’s liking, mine and many others’ as well.

I congratulate Katy Robinson on her work with women in construction. In my time looking after the Health and Safety Executive, it has been a delight to hear women’s voices, and Katy is obviously a leading light.

It is the legal duty of employers to protect their workers from risks to their health and safety, and they must consider ways in which they can remove or reduce risk by any other means before PPE is provided. PPE includes high-visibility clothing, safety helmets, gloves, footwear and hearing protection. It should be regarded as the last resort to protect against risks to health and safety, but a rounded approach must be taken. For many workers, PPE is issued by employers to ensure that they are protected against risks that cannot otherwise be controlled, as I have outlined. PPE may be needed to reduce the risk of ill health and injury from hazards, such as breathing in dust or fumes, being splashed with corrosive liquids that may damage eyes or skin, and excessive noise, which may affect hearing and create hearing loss.

I turn to a couple of points made by the hon. Lady, and I will try to reassure her. I understand that the relevant trade association, the British Safety Industry Federation, is initiating a project with the British Standards Institution to look at whether industry standards can be better framed to ensure that inclusive PPE is better designed. Manufacturers make up a significant proportion of those who sit on the relevant British standards technical committees for products of this type and, rightly, they are capable of influencing the range of what can be supplied.

The hon. Lady talked about the Equality Act and set out a number of protected characteristics that prevent workers from being discriminated against in the regulations. The protected characteristics cover age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy, maternity, race, religion or belief, and sex and sexual orientation.

On the HSE’s comprehensive guidance, I note the hon. Lady’s ask for statutory guidance, and I am sure that it will be listening to her queries. I am sure that if there is anything I cannot cover in the debate, we will be writing to her about it. The HSE guidance already clarifies the position relating to workers with protected characteristics and states that PPE provided must take this into account. There is no exemption from the regulations for disabled people, and suitable PPE must be worn and provided if the risk assessment indicates that it is required. I hope that that reassures the House.

It is the responsibility of the employer to ensure that suitable personal protective equipment is provided to workers who may be exposed to a risk to their health and safety, to increase the likelihood of acceptance of and happiness with that equipment. As the hon. Lady pointed, out ill-fitting boots present trip hazards and overalls with sleeves or cuffs that are too long increase the risk of entrapment in moving machinery, so it is important that PPE fits well. She mentioned the need for suitability to anatomy as well.

The design of PPE is regulated by UK regulation 2016/425 on personal protective equipment. Annex II of the regulation sets out the essential health and safety requirements that PPE must meet. This includes requirements that cover comfort and effectiveness. The hon. Lady also pointed out an issue with the lack of employer awareness when procuring items, rather than those items not being available, so tonight’s debate is a welcome opportunity for us to spell out what employers should be doing.

Let me turn to the existing requirements in the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992. Where PPE is necessary, the regulations already state that the ergonomic requirements and the health condition of the person wearing it must be taken into account. It is clearly important that the wearer of the PPE should always be involved in the process, to increase the likelihood of the acceptance and effectiveness of the equipment. For any employees listening, that is equally important for them to know. In this context, “suitable” means that it is appropriate for the risks involved and, more importantly, takes into account ergonomic requirements, the health conditions of the wearer, and the fact that it is capable of fitting the wearer correctly without further increasing the risk. Those regulations are there, and I reiterate that to the House this evening.

The Health and Safety Executive and local authorities are responsible for regulating and enforcing the provision of PPE at work. Those authorities will take robust action if they receive reports of employers who do not ensure that PPE that meets the requirements is issued to workers. They have also published a range of readily available guidance to assist employers to comply with their obligations. This highlights the fact that “one size fits all” is unacceptable. I bought my own protective boots for site visits so that I know they will fit correctly.

[Emma Hardy]

On that point, I can give the Minister a concrete example. I visit certain places with a member of my office staff who has size 3 feet, and she is unable to find any boots that fit her. That is a regular occurrence when we go on these visits. People assume that everyone has larger feet.

[Mims Davies]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. My feet are hardly the size of Kylie Minogue’s, sadly, but sometimes those boots are just too big, aren’t they?

The Equality Act 2010 sets out a number of protected characteristics, including gender, race, disability and religion. If a risk assessment undertaken by the employer indicates that it is necessary, PPE should be suitable and sufficient, and of course those protected characteristics must be taken into account. Those requirements under the regulations are enforceable. It is right to remind people that there is suitable guidance, both for industry and inspectors.

Taking a slight step back from the PPE issues, and turning to product safety and ensuring safety through design and manufacture, the Office for Product Safety and Standards is responsible for the legislative and standards framework that governs PPE, which is also regulated by regulation 2016/425. Annex II sets out the essential health and safety requirements that PPE must meet, which include comfort and effectiveness:

“PPE must be designed and manufactured in such a way as to facilitate its correct positioning on the user and to remain in place for the foreseeable period of use, bearing in mind ambient factors, the actions to be carried out and the postures to be adopted. For this purpose, it must be possible to adapt the PPE to fit the morphology of the user by all appropriate means, such as adequate adjustment and attachment systems or the provision of an adequate range of sizes.”

I am sure the hon. Lady is pointing to that this evening.

Supporting these regulations is a suite of technical standards. Manufacturers make up a significant proportion of the members of the technical committees for these products, and they have the ability to influence the range that is supplied in this way. Again, this debate is a timely reminder that these regulations do not mandate manufacturers to produce PPE for specific users. However, the Government support any initiative—we have heard about some tonight—that improves design to meet the needs of the full range of users.

I understand from the OPSS that gender-responsive standards have been raised by industry groups, and that the British Safety Industry Federation is initiating a project with the British Standards Institution to look at how those industry standards can be better framed to ensure that PPE in particular is designed better and more appealingly for women.

Although the development of standards can take years, the law is clear about what is required. PPE must be suitable for the task and for each individual. I took time to reflect on the issue in preparation for this debate, and I am aware of the significant steps that have recently been taken by manufacturers. It seems clear that they are working harder than ever to increase their understanding of their customers’ needs, which has partly driven an increase in the range available, but tonight proves the point.

I have been made aware of at least one article that suggests the perceived lack of available inclusive PPE is more about employers’ lack of awareness in procuring the right items than about items not being readily available. In addition, a recent article in New Civil Engineer highlighted the PPE campaign that is working to raise awareness and to address inequalities in PPE provision and design for minority groups. There is a focus on women, but it also covers wider minority groups. One success highlighted in the article, relating to PPE and inclusivity, was that after a procurement team was alerted to the fact that items were available, those items were subsequently included in the internal procurement catalogue. Again, the issue was about awareness.

Although I am touching on successes in recent work, there is clearly more to be done. That is what tonight’s debate is about and why the Health and Safety Executive has leant its support to the “Protection for Everyone” campaign launched by Safety and Health Practitioner. The campaign aims to raise awareness about the effect of ill-fitting PPE and contains stories from those who have faced challenges in getting suitable PPE. The Government wholeheartedly support this message and we look forward to seeing how it progresses

The debate has provided a welcome opportunity to explore PPE. As I said to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, if there are further points that are relevant, I will respond to her in writing. I hope this reassures hon. Members in the Chamber this evening, including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) —we would expect nothing less—and others, that the legislation on PPE is appropriate. The Government are committed to raising awareness and, as some hon. Members mentioned, encouraging more manufacturers to provide PPE that is fully inclusive for their customers and their users.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mims Davies and Emma Hardy

Monday 5th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the value of our local DWP programmes. In Rother Valley, the Reed in Partnership approach has given vital support to his constituents, helping them into work. It is vital to keep supporting them to remain there, and that is where that particular programme helps. Access to Work and our Disability Confident scheme are just some of the initiatives to support disabled people and those with health conditions while in employment.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

Half the women surveyed with endometriosis had to take time off work often or very often because of their condition, and one in six women had to give up work altogether. Will the Minister meet the incredible women from Endometriosis Support Hull and East Yorkshire to discuss the work they are doing with the local trade unions to create a best practice charter for employers in Hull to support women with endometriosis in the workplace?

[Mims Davies]

I was in Aberdeen on Thursday meeting women with health conditions and hearing about how we can better support women who are having debilitating impacts from the menopause. That was in the oil and gas sector, where it takes a long time to build up to a senior career. I would be interested to hear about the work that the hon. Lady’s local team are doing. Through the wider women’s health strategy, we are supporting women to have a thriving career all the way through. I am keen to hear from her and those women, and to support the women to stay in work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mims Davies and Emma Hardy

Monday 13th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies]

I am pleased to share with my hon. Friend and the House the fact that in May, a littler earlier in the year, I launched a key partnership with Google offering free IT training for jobseekers. That opportunity gives 9,000 jobseekers the chance to obtain a Google career certificate, which is a level 3 qualification and recognised by the industry. As of 3 September, our jobcentres have referred more than 3,800 people to that life-changing employment scheme.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

Disabled people face huge challenges when changing careers, partly due to the fact that they often wait for three months to be approved for access to work, even before they receive their first payment. Will the Minister meet me, the Hull-based charity Choices and Rights Disability Coalition, and Disability Rights UK to discuss how together we can look at improving access to work?

[Mims Davies]

I understand that we are working towards 20 days and a transitional programme, but the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work is keen to meet the hon. Lady and ensure that she understands that fully. This is a priority for us.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mims Davies and Emma Hardy

Monday 17th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising the issue of getting young people into work. As we heard from the Secretary of State, approximately 400 young people, on average, have been going into work per day for the past four weeks. I urge her to meet the Rose Hill youth hub, the newly launched DWP youth hub that covers her constituency and has been working with Oxford Jobcentre Plus from April, as well as Aspire, Activate and Oxford City Council. That will give her the insight that she needs about what is happening on the ground. She can also meet the local youth employability work coaches. We are breaking down the data as far as we can, but our priority right now is to get young people into those new roles.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

When she plans to publish her Department’s review of the special rules for terminal illness.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mims Davies and Emma Hardy

Monday 19th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

What recent assessment she has made of trends in the level of employment.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies) [V]]

The latest official statistics show the level of employment at 32.6 million. We recognise that there are difficult times ahead, but our ambitious £30 billion plan for jobs will support people during this next phase of our recovery as we push to build back better and greener. We are working with other Government Departments, external organisations and our local partners to support people into work, to react to changes in local labour markets and to work with our local Jobcentre Plus provision to help communities to thrive.

[Emma Hardy]

When one of my constituents, who was working as a cleaner, was recently furloughed, she was recommended to move to universal credit and away from working tax credit. I wrote to the Department on 7 July and again on 7 August. I have just had a reply, on 12 October, telling me that because my constituent earned £666.21 in a month, she was entitled to nothing whatsoever from universal credit. Not only that, but she had to repay the advance loan that she had had at the beginning. This system is failing her, and she is in a desperate situation. When will the Government look at allowing people to return to working tax credit and move away from this unfair system of universal credit?

[Mims Davies]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising what sounds like a concerning situation for that family. We recognise that we are currently in an unusual and challenging economic period, and I am sure that the Minister for welfare delivery, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), will have taken note of that particular case. I am sure we will be able to look at that once again, and I thank the hon. Lady for raising the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mims Davies and Emma Hardy

Wednesday 17th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

What recent assessment the Government have made of the effect of the covid-19 outbreak on disabled people.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)]

The Government are committed to supporting disabled people through the covid-19 outbreak and beyond. We continue to monitor its impact on disabled people and those with a health condition, using existing and new data sources to improve our understanding.

[Emma Hardy]

Many people with disabilities and parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities have contacted me, feeling very fearful that they will face abuse for not wearing a face covering on public transport. Labour supports the use of face coverings, but the Government’s messaging needs to be very clear. Will they ensure that their public advertising campaign includes and explains the exemptions and look at supporting local charities that are trying to address that?

[Mims Davies]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising this point. We need to recognise that some people with disabilities face particular difficulty when it comes to social distancing and are impacted on by the reaction of others due to their inability to socially distance—I understand, particularly, the situation for young children. I reassure her that the Department for Transport has revised transport guidance for travellers and operators and considers the details needed for disabled travellers. I hope that that reassures her.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mims Davies and Emma Hardy

Thursday 17th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. The women issue and the work journey are absolutely a priority for me in this role. Universal credit is not a gender-specific fund. It focuses on individual needs and support, and that can be different for men and women. I am absolutely determined, in this role, along with the new Secretary of State, to ensure that we better reflect the women’s work journey, including returning to work.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

7. What steps the Government are taking to support women leaving prison.