Environmental Protection

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. This move has overwhelming support from the general public, who are sick to death and fed up of seeing their streets and rivers blighted by litter. Slovakia implemented a scheme in 2022, and that country now has a 92% return rate; it is right up there with countries that have had schemes for decades. We know that we can do the same in the UK; just look at how behaviour has changed since the introduction of charges for carrier bags in shops. That led to a rapid change in people’s habits. Imagine where we would be if the previous Government had focused on recycling plastic bottles, rather than smuggling champagne bottles in suitcases into Downing Street.

The deposit return scheme is one of the three strands of our packaging reforms, along with extended producer responsibility for packaging and the simpler recycling programme for England. We estimate that, together, the packaging reforms will support 21,000 new green jobs in our nations and regions, and stimulate more than £10 billion of investment in recycling capability over the next decade. CPRE, the countryside charity, estimates that the deposit return scheme will deliver 4,000 of those new jobs. It is also estimated that the reforms will save over 46 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2035, valued at more than £10 billion in carbon benefits.

The deposit return scheme will end the epidemic of litter on our streets and restore pride in our communities. It will improve the countryside, preserve our wildlife and protect our beaches and marine environment. I have spoken to several fantastic organisations that were part of the huge campaign that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) mentioned, including the Marine Conservation Society, the Aylesbury Wombles and, in my constituency, Destination Ball Hill. There are so many people spending so many volunteer hours dealing with this pollution problem, and doing their best to keep their area looking nice.

The brilliant charity Keep Britain Tidy estimates that littered drinks bottles and cans along our roadsides are killing millions of our native mammals every year. If we drive along the M1 motorway, we see buzzards and birds of prey circling, and that is because our national highways have become nature corridors. They are a very important habitat for RES—rare and endangered species—and much-loved small mammals such as shrews, bank voles and wood mice, but we are finding more and more of them becoming trapped in plastic bottles carelessly discarded along our highways. We must act to protect these precious creatures. We want less Mr Toad and more Moley.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the deposit return scheme; it would have been fantastic if it had been delivered many years ago, as had been promised. On the wider issue of litter affecting our constituencies, will the Minister say more about how this measure fits in with the work the Government are doing to, for want of a better phrase, get tough on litter and tough on the causes of litter?

[Mary Creagh]

I thank my hon. Friend for that, and we are looking at what further reforms we can bring in to tackle the rogue waste collectors. The carriers, brokers and dealers regime is not fit for purpose. I have asked officials to look at what we can do to strengthen that, and to avoid the sort of casual criminality we saw just yesterday in the constituency of Lichfield, where waste from a construction site was abandoned in the middle of a country lane, literally trapping nine households in their houses; they were unable to leave. I understand that the Environment Agency has been in touch, and the council is working to clear that blockage. It is clear that, with this Government, the era of talking is over and the era of action is upon us, and there will be nowhere for these waste criminals to hide.

The deposit return scheme is about having a more resource-resilient economy, and not being reliant on materials brought in from overseas. The scheme under the statutory instrument that we are discussing is consistent with the “polluter pays” principle. Giving money back for bottles and cans provides an incentive for people to do the right thing. It places obligations on drinks producers, not consumers, to ensure that containers are collected and recycled. We have set an ambitious target of collecting 90% of in-scope containers by the third year of the scheme. I am confident that the public are with us. We know people hate litter in their parks, in their countryside and on their streets. As with plastic bag charges, once this is the norm, people will just get on with it. Small changes for individuals will deliver huge national benefits.

I will now turn to the details of this instrument. Laid in draft before the House on 25 November 2024, this instrument establishes in England and Northern Ireland, and I can tell the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that Minister Muir is the responsible Minister in Northern Ireland—

Rivers, Lakes and Seas: Water Quality

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) for bringing forward this important debate.

In December, the Environment Agency rehomed thousands of fish into the River Cut at Jock’s Lane in Bracknell. That stocking will provide an immediate boost to fish numbers, which will be multiplied many times when the arrivals settle into their new homes and begin to spawn. In recent years, Jock’s Lane has been better known as a sewage spot than an angler’s paradise, so this intervention is welcome. The question now is how best to protect these latest Bracknell residents from any further sewage leakage.

In 2023, Thames Water dumped more than 1,000 hours of raw and partially treated sewage into Bracknell and Sandhurst rivers. In Bracknell that was into the River Cut and in Sandhurst it was into the River Blackwater. It is not only deeply damaging to nature; it is frankly disgusting. A decade of under-investment by water companies and a lack of oversight from successive Tory Governments have led us to this.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

In 2023, Chichester suffered 990 sewage spills in our rivers and harbour, lasting more than 17,000 hours. Does the hon. Member agree that, after a decade of Tory inaction, the Water (Special Measures) Bill is welcome, but it could go further on regulation, especially by giving Ofwat teeth?

[Peter Swallow]

I will come to just that point shortly.

The rain we saw earlier this month is another reminder of the problems we are facing. It led to another bout of sewage dumping in my constituency, including from the recently upgraded Ascot sewage works, which I visited back in December. Since 2020, executives of the water companies overseeing these incidents have been paid £41 million in bonuses and benefits, and it is reported that over the last two years water companies have paid out more than £2.5 billion in dividends. Meanwhile, the current maximum fixed penalty notice—the monetary penalty—that regulators can impose on water companies for the majority of water sector offences is £300. It is little surprise, then, that a recent survey by Ofwat showed that only a quarter of customers see companies as acting in the interests of the people and the environment.

During the general election, I campaigned on the promise that Labour would get tough on water companies and cut down on the horrific pollution they are causing. I promised that a Labour Government would put failing water companies under special measures, blocking bonuses for executives who pollute our waterways, bringing criminal charges against persistent lawbreakers, enabling automatic and severe fines for wrongdoing, and ensuring the monitoring of every sewage outlet. For that reason, I am delighted the Government have brought forward their Water (Special Measures) Bill, and I am proud to have supported it on Second Reading.

I used to be a teacher, so I know what marking your own homework looks like. The requirement for water companies to publish information on discharges from emergency overflows in near-real time will create unprecedented levels of transparency, giving regulators and the public regular insight into the around-the-clock operations of water companies. Meanwhile, making it a statutory requirement for water companies in England to publish annual pollution incident reduction plans will force water companies to set out clear, transparent actions. I would welcome clarity from the Minister on whether that monitoring will be truly independent. How much of a role will Ofwat or other relevant bodies have in producing, monitoring and assurance-testing the production of the data?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Swallow]

The hon. Member mentions the monitoring of overflows. Will he put on record for the House how many emergency overflows were being monitored under his Government?

[Robbie Moore]

I come back to the point that monitoring is incredibly important. This is why we brought out a requirement for all water companies to specifically carry out more monitoring: before 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were monitored. That is completely unacceptable. We needed to understand the problem so that we could not only use our regulators to enforce water companies to carry out the level of investment we would expect of them, but strongly hold those water companies, and indeed all polluters, to account. I encourage the Government to keep going with that, which is why we have taken a constructive approach to the Water (Special Measures) Bill that is working its way through the House.

There are three points which I want to focus on and I would be grateful if the Minister could address them in her response. First are the points that have been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), to do with the £35 million allocation to the River Wye action plan, announced earlier this year. The River Wye action plan was specifically designed to address those challenges to do with pollution from our farmers. The plan set out a range of measures to begin protecting the river immediately from pollution and establish a long-term plan to restore the river for future generations. That included requiring large poultry farms to export manure away from areas where they would otherwise cause excess pollution and providing a fund of up to £35 million for grant support for on-farm poultry manure combustion combustors in the River Wye special area of conservation. The plan also appointed a chair.

I would therefore like to ask the Minister why the plan has been dropped, despite those things having been put in place? Where has the £35 million been reallocated? We are now six months into this Labour Government, but yet there has been no announcement on the River Wye and I fear that there will be no action taken. We are almost coming up to a year since that plan was worked on. If the Minister could update the House on that, it would be greatly appreciated.

The second point is the water restoration fund, which was specifically designed to ringfence money that had been collected from those water companies that had been polluting, to focus specifically on improving water quality. The fund, when it was announced, allocated £11 million-worth of penalties collected from water companies to be offered on a grant basis to local support groups, farmers, landowners and community-led schemes. Hon. Members have talked about how good their local campaigners are at utilising funds that are provided to them, and I absolutely endorse that, but that fund was specifically ringfenced for penalty money reclaimed from water companies to be reinvested.

The Government are not taking the water restoration fund forward, so will the Minister accept the Conservative amendment to the Water (Special Measures) Bill on that point? The water restoration fund came exclusively from water company fines and penalties, which are in addition to any other work the company must carry out to repair breaches that it has caused. Will the Minister explain why the Government are not continuing the fund, and why she does not think it is important that water companies clean up their own mess when money has been collected from them?

Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Peter Swallow Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

It is absolutely right and correct that we debate these measures to improve the water industry. In the light of continued concerns over Thames Water and Southern Water, action must be taken to protect our water service.

It is important to take a step back and put the debate into its proper context. We must appreciate that most of the UK has a combined sewerage system, meaning that both rainwater and wastewater are carried in the same pipes, before wastewater goes into a sewage treatment plant. If, as in recent weeks, we have exceedingly heavy rainfall, capacity can be exceeded and water companies are allowed to spill untreated wastewater into rivers and seas—otherwise, there is a risk of flooding people’s homes with waste. There has been an issue of companies doing that when there has been no rain—known as a dry spill—which is not acceptable.

Although it has been miscommunicated by other parties and by the Secretary of State, the previous Government took the vital step of requiring storm overflows to be monitored. As hon. Friends have said, that monitoring increased from 7% in 2010 to 100% in 2024. It has enabled discussions and plans to fix the poor behaviour of the water companies. The overflows were always happening, but the previous Government’s monitoring caught the poor behaviour and highlighted the action that was required.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Reed]

I thank the hon. Member for raising those points; this issue has affected our county, and I hope that members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee raise it as fast as possible, to ensure that South West Water is held accountable and placed in front of them to answer questions about how that outbreak happened. I reiterate that our constituents deserve a solution that is ambitious but achievable. It was under the previous Government that the scale of the issue was truly identified—a point that has been raised repeatedly this evening.

[Peter Swallow]

The hon. Member is correct: many Conservative Members have raised the issue of monitoring, and they have repeatedly mentioned storm overflows. Will he put on record how many emergency overflows are currently being monitored?

[David Reed]

This is a major issue. We are talking about the sewage network for an entire country. The last Government pushed for storm overflows to be looked at, and I am glad that the Bill, which has been brought forward by this Government, will look at emergency overflows.

As we know, the landmark Environment Act 2021 gave regulators stronger powers to tackle pollution and ensure greater transparency, holding water companies and polluters accountable. The last Government also set legally binding targets to improve water quality, reduce pollution and enhance biodiversity, while the plan for water took a systematic, local, catchment-based approach, requiring significant investment in storm overflow improvements. That was decisive action to hold water companies to account, linking performance to shareholder payments, banning bonuses for water bosses responsible for serious breaches, and empowering regulators to impose unlimited financial penalties on polluters.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

2. What steps she is taking to help increase prosecution rates for cases relating to violence against women and girls.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

7. What steps she is taking to help increase prosecution rates for cases relating to violence against women and girls.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

9. What steps she is taking to help increase prosecution rates for cases relating to violence against women and girls.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her election as chair of the Work and Pensions Committee. The statistics that she has given are indeed worrying, and the mission of halving violence against women and girls is therefore central to the Government’s agenda. Behind each of those statistics lie heartbreaking personal stories. We need to do much better, which is why the Lord Chancellor has committed herself to introducing specialist rape courts to fast-track rape cases and why the Home Office is delivering plans to introduce specialist rape and sexual offence teams in every police force. It is measures of that kind that will address the problems highlighted by my hon. Friend.

[Peter Swallow]

The 2023 police efficiency, effectiveness and legitimacy report on Thames Valley police established that the force did not make full use of Clare’s law. Does the Solicitor General agree that Clare’s law is a powerful tool to protect women from those who have already been prosecuted for domestic violence?

[The Solicitor General]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising an important issue. He is right: Clare’s law is a powerful tool, and it needs to be applied more evenly and consistently. The domestic violence disclosure scheme, known as Clare’s law, enables the police to disclose information to a victim, or potential victim, of domestic abuse about previous abusive or violent offending by a partner or ex-partner. The police need to consider each request on its own merits. However, more needs to be done to ensure that the scheme is used consistently by police forces across the country, and I understand that the Home Office is currently engaging with the police to see how its application can be improved.