Water Bill

Neil Coyle Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 28th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Around 50 years ago, Margaret Thatcher’s revolution tore up the rulebook on political and economic management. She rewrote it with a single unwavering principle: that the pursuit of profit would serve the public good, even when it came to vital public services—even when it came to water. We often say that society stands on the shoulders of giants, but giants cast long shadows, and Thatcherism’s shadow looms dark over our water system today.

Whether we see ourselves standing on her shoulders or trapped in her shadow, one thing is undeniable: she proved that the world can be made differently. And if it can be made differently once, it can be made differently again. That, as the brilliant anthropologist David Graeber understood, is the hidden truth of the world. It is something we create and can choose to create anew. We can do it better.

Today, I want to show this House and this country that water is the lens through which we can imagine something better—a better way of running our economy, a better way of safeguarding our environment and a better way of empowering the public, for whom democracy supposedly exists. But that requires something very difficult: it requires us to break free from the constraints of our imagination and to let go of the idea that this economic model is all there is or all there ever could be.

It saddens me to say that the Government’s Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 perfectly exemplifies this failure of imagination. One of its leading proponents has a particular rhetorical flourish they love to use when dismissing calls for public ownership of water. They say, “I’m more interested in the purity of our water than the purity of our ideology.” I love that quote. I love it because it lays bare just how deeply the ideology of privatisation, and all that goes with it, has embedded itself. So entrenched is it within our collective consciousness that we no longer recognise it as an ideology. We no longer see it for what it is: a systemic exploitation of a common resource for private gain. Instead, it has simply become the natural order of things.

But how much longer can this go on? Since the crash of 2008, this ideology has been faltering under the weight of its own contradictions, yet its grip on British politics remains vice-like. Austerity, exploitation and corporate price gouging are still treated not as choices but as inevitabilities. Why? Because too many politicians on both sides of the House refuse to contemplate alternatives. For those on the other side of the House—on the Opposition Benches—I get it: this is their ideology. They are defending their class, and I would imagine they would go further still if they could. But on this side of the House, we have no excuse. We should be standing up for our class: working-class people—the public. Instead, we wrap their ideology in the language of fiscal responsibility, economic prudence and stewardship of the economy. But it is not fiscal responsibility when we balance the books on broken backs. It is not stewardship when the ship has been sold off and the crew left to drown. It is not prudence. It is power maintenance.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I hope the engineers can check that the microphones and speakers are working while I ask a quick question. My hon. Friend mentions Members on this side of the House. There are far more of us on this side since July last year than there were in 2019, with a very different approach taken in our manifestos. Does he fear that the shift in tone he is suggesting is one of the reasons that we did so badly in 2019 but so well last year?

[Clive Lewis]

No, I do not. We have a distorted electoral system. Bring on proportional representation, because if we had PR, we would have had a different Government in 2019 and most definitely in 2017. Sometimes politicians have to do what they believe to be right and lead from the front. I think we should lead from the front.

[Clive Lewis]

I thank the right hon. Member for his point. I will come on to this later, and I hope other Members will pick up on it, but the fact that the public are way ahead of this House on the issue of public ownership is one of the reasons why so many people are losing faith in the two-party political system. One only has to look at some political parties whose Members are not in their place—at the Reform party, for example, which has a policy of public ownership of water. Yes, its Members will privatise the NHS, but they understand how popular this is, and they are ahead of the curve—they are ahead of us on this side.

[Neil Coyle]

Really?

[Clive Lewis]

On the issue of water, yes, I would say they are, because whether I like it or not, Reform has a policy for water to be owned 50% by pension companies and 50% by the public. As much as it grieves me to say it, that is a policy of public ownership. They are populist; they are listening to a popular voice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Lewis]

After 35 years of abject failure, it is too little, too late. My Bill would put the final nail in the coffin of this sorry chapter of our country’s water and water system.

[Neil Coyle]

Sticking with the puns, I commend my hon. Friend on his gallons of passion; he is always making waves. He criticises the Government’s legislation, which is obviously not yet in effect, but does he think that the Cunliffe commission will go any way towards addressing some of the concerns he has outlined?

[Clive Lewis]

Unfortunately, I do not, because again the elephant in the room—who owns our water—has been ruled out of the Cunliffe commission’s operational process. It cannot actually look at that issue. I have no issue with Sir Jon Cunliffe, but let us not forget that he originates from the Treasury—he probably has Treasury brain. That economic orthodoxy is part of the reason why we are in the place that we are. I do not have so much confidence in the Cunliffe commission, but I do have far more confidence in the People’s Commission on the Water Sector, which is being run by academics and which will report at the same time. I will be very interested to hear what it says.

[Neil Coyle]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Clive Lewis]

Those are the reasons why I have brought forward this Bill. The Government’s Act does none of those things, but my Bill does. Take just one example—

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that hospital pass. I will make a note not to follow the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) again, if I can help it. I will just try to do a good job, and perhaps not to speak for quite as long.

I am delighted to be here to discuss and support this Bill, and I thank the hon. Member for bringing it forward. It will be no surprise to anyone here that I am absolutely in favour of this Bill to fix the despicable situation of our waterways. To do that, we need to bring water back into public ownership. This issue is so important to me and my Green colleagues that we tabled the first early-day motion of this Parliament on the public ownership of water. We highlighted that sewage was

“being discharged into English waterways for more than 3.6 million hours in 2023…that water companies in England have incurred debts of more than £64 billion and paid out £78 billion in dividends”—

note the similarity of those numbers—

“since they were privatised debt-free in 1989”.

We pointed out that

“water companies paid out £1.4 billion in dividends in 2022, even as 11 of them were fined in the same year for missing performance targets”.

Privatisation is just not working. The experiment has failed. We are one of the only countries in the world with a fully privatised water system, which shows that it is a bad idea. Water is a natural monopoly. For example, people who live in the south-west, as I do, cannot choose to be supplied by Yorkshire Water. I am not sure that they would want to, but my point is that when their provider gives a poor service and charges extortionate sums, they cannot take their business elsewhere. There is no fair competition. You get what you get, and you cannot get upset about it—but we are upset about it, because sewage is being pumped into our water, and we are paying through the nose for the privilege, all while shareholders profit.

[Neil Coyle]

On the point about taking business elsewhere, do the Greens have a policy on how to perpetually nationalise an industry? One of the difficulties is that if we nationalise now, a future Government can do something very different. What is the Greens’ position on that?

[Carla Denyer]

One of the reasons why I support the Bill brought forward by the hon. Member for Norwich South is that it uses the tool of a citizens’ assembly to ask the public how they think the system should work, and to explore different options, rather than predetermining the exact model. For clarity, the Green party and I support public ownership of public services, but that does not necessarily mean nationalisation. Before the water companies were privatised, they were owned regionally, and I think that would be a sensible model this time. I also think that the citizens’ assembly could look into other forms of public ownership, such as co-operatives.

[Neil Coyle]

rose—

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Denyer]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I would also point to the citizens’ assembly set up by Bristol city council. Citizens’ assemblies are particularly strong at looking in depth at detailed, specific questions, rather than broad topics to do with how the entire country is run. I see citizens’ assemblies not as replacing the role of the House of Commons, but as supplementing it valuably.

[Neil Coyle]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Carla Denyer]

I will make some progress.

[Neil Coyle]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask for your direction? This is a debate, and there is no time limit. Is there any way of pressing a Member to answer a question during a debate, or to at least allow a debate to occur? I had a follow-up question that the hon. Member seems reluctant to allow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Denyer]

The provision of water—

[Neil Coyle]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Carla Denyer]

One last time, though the hon. Member is pushing it.

[Neil Coyle]

I am very grateful. The reason why I persist is that the issue of a citizens’ assembly has come up. My previous question was: how could a Government—any Government—bind the actions of a future democratically elected Government? A citizens’ assembly does not have the power to do that. I am intrigued; how can the Greens believe that a citizens’ assembly could bind a future Government, of any political persuasion, to not re-privatising our water industry?

[Carla Denyer]

Of course a current Government cannot bind a future Government on a decision like that indefinitely, and I was not suggesting that they could, but as I pointed out, as England is one of very few countries on the entire planet with a fully privatised water system, I suspect and hope that if we returned to a public system, it would be more likely to stay public, as both elected representatives and the public would see that the system performed better when the profit motive was removed.

--- 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I do not think there is a contradiction at all. I think it is mature, grown-up politics to say, “We have the objective of public ownership. We want you to consider what the best form and structure of it would be.” It could be that people do not agree with it at all; we would then have to discuss and debate the matter with them. Obviously, ultimately Parliament has to make the decision. I know everyone in the House is brilliant; the intellect is superb, and the knowledge amazing, and they are infallible in all their judgments, but is it just possible that there are some people who are not Members of Parliament who also have enormous knowledge, experience and ability? Perhaps we should listen to them, too.

[Neil Coyle]

rose—

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I will give way for the last time.

[Neil Coyle]

How long, roughly, does the right hon. Gentleman think it would take to ensure that the citizens were skilled up enough to contribute effectively to the full consultation that he is talking about? As he was so precious about the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), I will do him a favour by pointing out that the Bill requires the commission to report within four months.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Some people would not require any training or skills development at all; others might, and of course a short period would be needed for that. This is more a question for the promoter of the Bill. If the hon. Member for Norwich South wishes to intervene, I would be happy to give way on this point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), and I commend him for the passion with which he introduced the debate. I believe that I serve the best community in the country, and I am aware that I have constituents in the Public Gallery, but I do not play to the gallery. My community is shaped by the River Thames, literally, because the constituency’s northern border is the river. My constituents are subject to only one water operator, Thames Water, and I come here to serve my constituents by seeking pragmatic solutions. They want safe, affordable water, and problems fixed when they arise. I very rarely find constituents who obsess over who provides it.

Let us not beat around the bush: there is no doubt that Thames Water has been run into the ground. Customers in Southwark have a right to be angry. They have faced higher bills, leaks and sewage—it has been a disgrace. The great promises of privatisation have failed to materialise over 35 years. Sadly, the promise of lower bills and a more efficient industry has turned to dust.

The figures speak for themselves. It was reported last year that, since 2020, there have been at least 72 billion litres of sewage discharges into the Thames—I say “at least” because not all outlets are monitored. We should thank River Action and others, including wild swimmers, for their work on the issue. Wild swimmers are welcome at Greenland dock in my constituency. I am yet to take the plunge—literally.

Prosecutions of Thames Water by the Environment Agency for pollution incidents led to fines of £35.7 million between 2017 and 2023. Earlier this year, Thames Water was fined £3.3 million after it killed more than 1,400 fish by discharging millions of litres of untreated sewage into rivers. The company admitted four charges in an Environment Agency prosecution. That is unacceptable. It is prosecutable under existing law, and the company needed to do more. Change is required; it was promised in our manifesto, and I believe that the Government intend to deliver it.

I want to give a few examples from my constituency of how Thames Water operates. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) spoke about standpipes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) said, we see people affected by outages, as companies like to call them, and in that case, bottled water is meant to be provided. Too often, that is pushed on to councils to provide, rather than it being dealt with by the company responsible for failing to deliver such a basic essential.

I have had to intervene to support constituents in some frankly bizarre cases. In Stevenson Crescent, a constituent came to me who had a leak from a pipe by her front door for 15 years, leading to higher water bills. There was a dispute between Thames Water and her landlord, Hexagon Housing Association, and neither would take responsibility. Both said that she owed money and should pay. It should not take a Member of Parliament’s intervention to get companies and landlords to sort out a problem that had been going on for so long that it was causing damp and mould in this woman’s home. It is a disgraceful state of affairs, and the Government should seek to change it through legislation on how these companies operate.

On Welsford Street, Thames Water stored equipment, blocking emergency vehicles and causing disruption for about 18 months, which was unbelievably callous and disrespectful. In Janeway Street, near my constituency office, builders damaged kerbing and paving without care for how people used it, and they fenced off pavements, which caused disruption for people with pushchairs and wheelchairs. When Thames Water attended a flat above my constituency office, opposite Bermondsey tube station, it removed the gate at the back of my office and did not bother to put it back. I do not know why it thought I would not be on to it. In Oakville House, there was a sewage leak into the boiler room, which meant that residents were left without heating or hot water in December, when temperatures were below zero. That was completely unacceptable, and it was not fixed fast enough.

At Bermondsey village hall—yes, there is a village hall in Bermondsey in central London—there was a leak in the car park. Thames Water refused to accept responsibility. The water meter in this community facility was going like a desk fan. The hall is run by Chris Parsons, a wonderful community stalwart who runs the policing and ward panel; the last time I was in the village hall was to run a community safety forum. She is also involved in St Olave, St Thomas and St John United Charity, a historic charity providing education support and funds to people in difficult circumstances in my constituency. It does tremendous work, although there are issues that need sorting out, and Chris is working with me before the Charity Commission has to formally be involved.

Chris runs the community hall. It is a genuine community facility reliant on the good will of volunteers and people like Chris. The owner of the building—Leathermarket JMB, a co-operative—and Chris came to me because Thames Water would not acknowledge that it was responsible. It took months to sort this very basic problem. It took bailiffs turning up for debts that they claimed were thousands of pounds, and the threat of legal action. It was incredibly heavy-handed, and it was symbolic of the company’s attitude and uncaring model. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norwich South referred to the excesses of the sector. This is a good example of its lack of care for the customers it is meant to serve, and about the leak, which was pouring gallons of water underground, potentially damaging the foundations of other buildings.

Then there are the roadworks on Brunel Road. Two weeks ago today, Thames Water began work on Brunel Road. That has directly caused the loss of two bus services: the 381 and the C10. Brunel Road is in Rotherhithe. The constituency is shaped by the river. Rotherhithe is an Anglo-Saxon name that means “a landing place for cattle”. Rotherhithe is the docks. That means shipping—not just shipping of goods and trade, but shipping of people.

Other Members might claim credit for the Mayflower, but we know in Rotherhithe that the Mayflower set sail for the United States in 1620 from Rotherhithe. The master of the Mayflower, Christopher Jones, is buried in St Mary’s Church in Rotherhithe. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South talked about democracy. The reason the Mayflower set sail, crewed and was boarded by pilgrims in London was that they were seeking democratic and religious freedom. Americans claim the Mayflower as part of their democratic history. There is an amazing book on this written by a constituent in Bermondsey called Graham Taylor, “The Mayflower in Britain: How an icon was made in London”, which came out on the quatercentenary of the Mayflower journey—that is in 2020, for anyone struggling with the maths. It is about how the investors and the people boarded in London, rather than anywhere else.

I was talking about Brunel Road. Rotherhithe is a peninsula of 20,000-plus people. The 381 and C10 buses being cut off is hugely disruptive, forcing some people to walk more than a mile to get an alternative bus. Two weeks ago Thames Water used an emergency process to seek permission for its works, sending an email after council officers had left the building. There is a legitimate question about whether Southwark council should have had better access to emails over the weekend to see that emergency email pointing out works, but Thames Water used that emergency process and dug up the road. It could have done one side and then the other, but it chose to shut off the whole road—underhand and uncaring about the impact of the works. The works are supposed to finish today, and I hope they do, but if they do not, I hope Ministers will consider new powers for councils to block the misuse of emergency procedures, such as in that case.

Brunel Road is not named after Isambard Kingdom Brunel. Better than him, it is named after his father Marc—this is perhaps linked to the debate. Marc fled left-wing revolutionaries in France who were scrapping private ownership, not just without giving compensation but by taking off the heads of anyone who opposed it. More importantly, Marc Brunel designed and built the Thames tunnel, just a stone’s throw from the King’s Bench debtors prison, where he was locked up until the Duke of Wellington as Prime Minister funded a grant to release him so that he could build that tunnel, which was a feat of engineering at the time.

Drilled from Rotherhithe to Wapping, it was the first subaqueous tunnel in the world, and for many years the largest soft-ground tunnel. Invented in order to achieve that engineering feat was the tunnelling shield, one of the basic tools of modern civil engineering. The tunnel was completed in 1843. Originally it was just for pedestrians, but it has developed over time. It was unforeseeable at that time how it would go on to be used, at one point becoming part of the London underground. I am digressing, but if Members want to know more about Brunel history, the Brunel Museum in Rotherhithe is amazing and they should go. The museum actually sells Isambard Kingdom Brunel socks—though other Brunels are available.

Coming back to my point, the modern contrast with the Thames tunnel is the Tideway tunnel. Thames Water should have been in a secure place to deliver the modern tunnel that has gone under the Thames, but because it was mistrusted and because of the debt it had already accrued, it was not in a place to be able to deliver the new engineering feat that we have seen in my constituency. This engineering feat of the 21st century will improve the environment, take in storm overflow, prevent environmental damage and take some of the excess sewage away from London.

It is 7.2 metres wide, which is the equivalent of three London double-decker buses, for those who measure things by double-decker buses. The two connection tunnels are 5 metres and 2 metres in diameter respectively—5 metres being roughly the size of a London underground tunnel. One of the vertical shafts for the engineering tunnel is in Chambers Wharf, next to my constituency office, and came with a cofferdam—not without its detractors—that went right up close to people’s homes behind my office. That project was run well and gave compensation to the people directly affected, including those affected when the piling for the tunnel got stuck and there was drilling throughout the night until 5 o’clock in the morning. Members can imagine the complaints I got over that issue.

A cofferdam could have provided a new park for the community, with views back to Tower Bridge where people like to take selfies, but no one was willing to take on the maintenance and cost, and Thames Water was not in a position to be trusted. Instead of diverting to a new company to build this tunnel, Ministers under the last Government should have acted to address the problems that led Thames Water not to be trusted. As usual, the last Government left problems of that nature to be dealt with by a more responsible alternative, and here we are today talking about this Bill.

I make no bones about it; I am unconvinced that the state taking over is a solution, partly for the reasons I have stated. It is not a permanent solution on any grounds. I have serious doubts that making Thames Water a state-owned body would make the situation any better, given the faults it has.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I know you will be interested to know what my constituency party thinks. It debated this issue just last week, and out of more than 1,000 members, eight supported the nationalisation of Thames Water as an emergency motion. I thank those members for contributing, including Karen, Andy, Richard and others. It was useful to hear why they felt it was important. There were a lot of shared concerns about how the company is run, for the reasons I have outlined. I would like to thank Mike, Julie and other members who did not believe that simply nationalising it is a solution. They believe that state-owned does not necessarily equal better, cleaner or cheaper water, and there is no guarantee that things would be cheaper under a state-owned model.

We should look at evidence from other state-owned institutions. Nationalisation is not a magic bullet. Civil servants have many qualities, but running utility businesses is not necessarily in the Whitehall skillset, especially after 14 years of degradation. With Ministers such as Jacob Rees-Mogg, it is no wonder people were working from home. We have criticised the degradation of the civil service, but some supporters of the Bill suggest that civil servants have the skills and expertise to run a utility business.

[Clive Lewis]

I thank my hon. Friend for an excellent speech. I have learned so much history; it has been very interesting. He might be surprised to learn that I do not believe in state ownership of our water assets either. The Bill gives the public the final say on that, along with the Secretary of State and the commission. There are so many other models to consider: municipalised models, mutuals, handing the companies partly over to the strategic authorities and the Mayors that the Labour Government are setting up. There are myriad opportunities, options and routes to go down.

People say that the change would not be cheaper. I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to research by Visiting Professor David Hall and Conor Gray at the University of Greenwich. They said that the savings from within the system on a transition to some form of public ownership would amount to between £3.2 billion and £5.8 billion annually for England and Wales—enough to deliver price cuts of between 22% and 34%—because there would be lower rates for the financing of future expenditure.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. That was a very long intervention.

[Neil Coyle]

I am not clear where in the Bill such savings are supposedly achievable. I think it is naive to assume that things would automatically be better if the ownership of a water company were changed and it was run by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or the Treasury. We also have comparisons with France: Paris has a publicly owned water system, yet during the Olympics triathlon, events were repeatedly delayed due to poor water quality caused by sewage spills.

The cost has been touched on. The Social Market Foundation estimates that nationalising the water industry would cost a small fortune. Share and debt holders would need to be compensated, costing an estimated £90 billion—that is based on Ofwat’s regulatory capital value for companies in England and Wales. It would cost billions, take time and be extremely complex, and the burden of financing investment in the water and sewerage infrastructure would simply be transferred to my constituents, with no guarantee that future Ministers would provide the funding that the water system needs. And, of course, the debts would become public and go on to the Government’s balance sheet.

A state-owned system might also deter overseas investors in other water companies; that was one of the features of the debate we had in my constituency last week. All that would come at a time when the country is seeking to step up investment not only in water and sewerage infrastructure but in energy generation. I am not keen on anything that would block investment and slow growth, particularly when it comes to green, more environmentally friendly energy production.

I think it is right that the Government have not set out plans to nationalise water. I am interested in results for the people I serve. I welcome the fact that Ministers want to tackle the problems in the sector as quickly as possible by improving what we have. In 2019, frankly, voters were scared—so scared of our former leader and our manifesto commitments that they chose Boris Johnson over us. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South commends an element of populism in the support for water nationalisation, but given the populism that we have lived through and how we got into the situation the country faces now with Brexit, we should be more mindful and wary of simply saying that we should all welcome populist ideas. The public generally support the death penalty, but most of us would not recommend adopting that.

We went to the polls last year and did very well, in case anyone has not noticed. Our manifesto said specifically—on page 59, in case anybody does not remember, although I am sure everyone read it avidly:

“Labour will put failing water companies under special measures”

and that we would prevent dumping and empower the regulator. It went on:

“We will give regulators new powers to block the payment of bonuses to executives who pollute our waterways and bring criminal charges against persistent law breakers. We will impose automatic and severe fines for wrongdoing and ensure independent monitoring of every outlet.”

The water industry is not represented here today, so I want briefly to be the devil’s advocate. The industry would say that it has responded to our election and to some of the public concerns. For example, it would say that it has set out plans to invest £104 billion between 2025 and 2030 to support economic growth, build homes and secure our water supplies. It would outline that our drinking water is, I think, the joint third best in the world, which is something to be proud of. It would also say that between ’89 and ’23-24, the water industry invested more than £236 billion in real terms and £431 billion in total expenditure terms. The water industry would want us to focus on Ofwat and the role it has played. It claims that, had water bills risen with inflation, there would be £18 billion of additional funding—that is the figure from Water UK. From April 2020 to April 2025, Ofwat cut investment plans by £6.7 billion; that sum could have dealt with some of the issues. How we deal with the regulator is an important focus going forward.

On pollution, the water industry would say that it is not just about the water industry. Agriculture is believed to contribute to 40% of water-quality failures, and we do not spend enough time focused on other problems. On quality of service, apparently just under 16 billion litres of water are supplied to customers every day, which is the equivalent of 140.4 litres a day per person according to Ofwat’s figures. I am not sure how everyone is using their share—I intend to use mine.

The water companies would highlight the support that they provide to customers. They have provided £1 billion of financial support since 2020, including supporting 100,000 people during the pandemic with payment breaks, according to the Consumer Council for Water. They would also say that leakage is down, but, as I have said, my constituents think it is still too high and want to see further action.

Another issue affecting my constituency is blockages. We have not focused on this very much today, but in the UK there are 300,000 sewer blockages every year according to Utility Week. That is partly the result of 7 million wet wipes, 2.5 million tampons, 1.5 million sanitary pads and other things being incorrectly flushed down our toilets, including condoms and nappies. I ask people please to stop that—I am not suggesting that anyone in the Chamber or in this debate is responsible.

A business on Blackfriars Road that had been directly affected in 2018 by a blockage came to me. The smell and disruption were disgusting. It was a fatberg—I think that is the polite term: a blockage the size of three buses and weighing five tonnes. Appropriately, it was near the bottom end of Blackfriars Road—where else? It was dissected on Channel 4—where else?—on a programme called “Fatberg Autopsy: Secrets of the Sewers”, which is how we know the weight and what was in it. It was not the biggest fatberg in my constituency, never mind in the country—I assume they are worse in London. There was also a 30-tonne monster fatberg under Southwark cathedral and Borough market. Those fatbergs and problems in the sewers and the size of the oldest sewers are why we need the Tideway tunnel.

As I said, Ministers in the former Government should have addressed the concerns of Thames Water and not built a whole new model to deliver a tunnel that will help to address some of those challenges. We can contrast that with the Minister since 2024, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), who is in her place. We also have the Secretary of State, who represents a seat in Croydon—I should have looked that up. I thank them for acting on the manifesto that was raised with me and supported by so many constituents.

The Water (Special Measures) Act was delivered fast by this Government and delivers on the manifesto aims, but we should allow it to be implemented before we consider any other legislation. The Act delivers on promises by blocking bonuses for executives who pollute our waterways, bringing criminal charges against persistent lawbreakers, enabling automatic and severe penalties and ensuring the monitoring of every sewage outlet. Those are all useful and would have helped to tackle issues with Thames Water and other companies in the past. As I say, we should allow that legislation to be implemented before we look at further adapting and changing it.

The way in which we regulate is important; we cannot bind a future Government. A regulated market with clear safeguards for consumers, a ban on profiteering and a system that delivers long-term investment with a clear framework in regulation is far better. That is the aim of the Government, which was delivered within months of the election. Of course, that was followed by the review, which will shape further legislation in time. With apologies to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South, I believe this Bill should wait until we see its outcome. The Independent Water Commission has objectives for the water industry and strategic spatial planning—all the “blah, blah, blah” bits—but, importantly, it also has Labour values in its objectives on affordability for customers, water company governance, and operational and financial resilience.

The commission also includes key measures that have not yet been touched on in this debate, including ensuring the water industry’s long-term stability, allowing it to attract investment, rationalising and clarifying the requirement for water companies to achieve better environmental measures—[Interruption.] I am being encouraged to go faster. The commission’s objectives also include improving the industry’s capacity.

I apologise for talking a little longer than expected. Any new legislation on the water industry must be mindful that nationalisation without compensation damages the whole sector and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South must be aware, forces the state to do more at a time when the Government are having to cut other budgets.

As I said, the motion on this issue did not pass in my constituency, but we have more in common on tackling the abuses in the system, including Thames Water’s abuse of my constituents, the lack of care about operations, the abuse of customers on bills and leaks, and the abuse of the state when a company that believes it is too big to fail expects us to step in.

I do not put form before function, and I am focusing on the functions of an effective water company. I am proud that we have delivered our manifesto commitment, and I look forward to further action from Ministers.