Water Sector: Public Ownership

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the many constituents who signed this petition. We have heard a range of views from across the Chamber on the best ownership model, but we can surely agree that the current model is untenable, is unsustainable and lacks democratic involvement. No one wants it except the water bosses themselves.

My constituents continue to write to me to express their dissatisfaction with the system. Our local waste water company is Wessex Water. The former chief executive, Colin Skellett, received an £170,000 bonus from parent company YTL Utilities in 2024, despite a Government ban on performance-related payments following criminal pollution convictions. Accounts covering the period to June 2025 show that the Malaysian-owned parent company paid Mr Skellett remuneration of £693,000 in total. Wessex Water was subject to a bonus ban after being criminally convicted in November 2024 over a sewage pumping station failure.

My hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) condemned this passionately, but I am sorry to say that since then things have not got any better. Our rivers are not cleaner, our infrastructure has not seen significant upgrades and our water bills have not gone down. However, Ruth Jefferson, the current chief executive of Wessex Water, has received a 14% pay increase, from £590,000 to £671,000—well above inflation. Environment Agency data shows that last year the company released 190,666 hours of raw sewage into the waterways—equivalent to about 21 years of continuous spillage. How many of our constituents got a 14% pay rise for failing to do their job so spectacularly? People recognise it for what it is.

Mutual ownership by customers would put an end to this mockery. It would allow profits to be reinvested in infrastructure rather than being paid to shareholders. It would allow legally binding priorities to be set—[Interruption.]

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Claire Young]

I will—thank you.

[Peter Swallow]

I will give the hon. Lady a chance to drink some water, which is, of course, what we are all here to talk about. It is important to my constituents, and I know to hers. I will let her carry on with her fantastic speech.

[Claire Young]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I was trying to say that mutual ownership would allow legally binding priorities to be set so that companies would have to protect the environment, provide clean water and provide standards that we do not have at the moment.

I want to say one other thing: it is not just the default local water company that deals with waste water. On many modern estates, private companies that are separate to the default water company for the area are taking the waste, and there are no guarantees. If they fail, the responsibility for that waste reverts to Wessex Water in our case, and it may end up taking on even more inadequate infrastructure than it already has. That is something else to consider when we are discussing this issue.

Water Management

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right that developers should pay their way. There is much to do, as I will come to.

On average, each house roof in England receives enough free rainwater to meet all its household’s non-potable—non-drinking—water needs, including flushing toilets, washing clothes and watering gardens. Instead of that, we send it, often at high speed, into the sewerage network where it discharges into our rivers. At the same time, we spend millions of pounds making pure drinking water, pumping it into our homes and flushing that down the toilet.

Around a quarter to a third of drinking water in our homes gets nowhere near being drunk. In fact, it is all flushed down the drain without a single drop quenching anybody’s thirst. It is an appalling and pointless waste of drinking water and energy. It means that we respond by investing tens of billions of pounds in reservoirs to hold a bit more rain, so we can treat more of it, pump more of it into our homes and—yes—flush more of it down the toilet unnecessarily. That is not environmental progress; that is a high-carbon and highly expensive way of papering over the cracks in our water system.

The water from our homes and highways—vast volumes of rainwater—continue to go straight down the drain as well, mixing with sewage, pointlessly being pumped and treated and pumped and treated, and far too often creating a backwash that sends sewage tumbling into the River Tone in my constituency and into rivers and beaches across the country.

Our waste water treatment plants can cope with the sewage that is produced. What they cannot cope with is the millions of litres of rainwater we add to the sewage before we send it to the waste water treatment plants. Too often we respond by investing huge amounts into storage tanks to hold stormwater, so we can pump and treat more of it. that is a high-carbon and highly expensive way of papering over the cracks in our water system.

The climate is making the problems worse and, ironically, our addition of rainwater into the mix is making the climate worse—a classic doom loop. As the atmosphere warms, England’s winters become wetter and our summers drier with more intensive thunderstorms. Meanwhile, housing delivery continues at scale, covering land with more impermeable surfaces while we continue to legally entitle developers to collect new rainwater and add that to the sewerage systems as well, which cannot cope. We are building the problem into existence before our eyes.

Contrast this with how we look and deal with energy. We no longer assume that all power has to be generated centrally. Instead, we actively encourage decentralised generation, such as solar panels on roofs which, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), will now be required on every roof of every new home. We have batteries in homes and heat pumps replacing distant combustion, and we offer grants to make it happen. On water, we remain stubbornly stuck in—well, I was going to say the 20th century, but it feels like the 19th century.

Other countries have progressed. In parts of Belgium, new homes must capture rainwater for beneficial use. No wonder it has achieved the lowest per capita water consumption in Europe, and no doubt the lowest water bills with it. Australia, Germany and Singapore have embedded rainwater harvesting and source-controlled drainage into mainstream development. In England, by contrast, we continue to ignore rainwater’s massive asset value. Even the amendment I proposed to the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 that new homes should capture rainwater to use it and lower residents’ bills was rejected, I am sorry to say, by the Government.

This issue will not go away, and the alternative approach is really not that radical. It is all remarkably simple. The simple principle is what is called source control: capture rain where it falls, use it wisely and return the excess rain to the ground where it fell. Why use it to top up our sewage? Do we love sewage so much that we actually want to make more of it by adding more water and creating an even greater volume? For all those homes built in earlier centuries where rainwater is directed into the sewer already, why not offer grants to retro-split two drains from the one drain they have at the moment? It would mean lower costs for the consumer, lower water bills, less sewerage for water companies, less sewage going into our rivers and lower costs for the Government, the public and the agencies to cope with.

It could cut water bills by roughly a third, meaning £225 off the average household bill. A household in Taunton and Wellington that catches its own rainwater and takes it out of the sewer would cut its water bill by a quarter to a third. That is around £225 a year off a £695 bill. Nationally, that is 28% to 35% of the total bill. If we gross that up, that is £6.5 billion off bills across 29 million households. Imagine what that could do if it was freed up to be spent in the economy in other ways.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I confess that I am a little confused. There are plenty of places in the country, including in my region, where we already have a separate system for sewage and rainwater runoff that should keep them separate. Yet, over many years, we have seen that that has not had the desired effect, and I am sorry to say that we are still seeing far too much sewage going into our rivers. While I recognise the point he is trying to make, I do not think that it is the silver bullet he suggests. Does he not accept that if we are to capture more rainwater, the way to do that is to build the reservoirs we need?

[Gideon Amos]

As I said at the beginning, we certainly need some reservoirs; I completely accept that. However, as I have explained, we do not assume that the only solution with energy is massive, centralised power stations. In the same way, collecting water on our roofs and in our homes can make a massive contribution. That contribution —some £6.5 billion back into people’s pockets—is not to be sneezed at.

Done at scale, the approach simultaneously tackles water scarcity, water excesses and carbon emissions. Toilets flushed with rainwater reduce demand for new reservoirs and enable more new development. Soakaways, green roofs and property-level sustainable drainage systems help to slow run-off and reduce flood risk and storm overflows. Less pumping and treatment means lower operational carbon. Less concrete and excavation means lower embodied carbon. Crucially, decentralised rainwater management delivers the benefits exactly where people experience them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

On the point about farm reservoirs, my hon. Friend is correct. Today I held a meeting of the national drought group, and we had a focus on agriculture and the impact that drought has had on farmers. We are talking now about potential rain, El Niño and flooding, but drought is still here in this country. One of the conversations we had was, how can we support farmers to hold more of the water that comes down from the sky? We are focusing a lot on funding farm reservoirs, but we also need to think about filling farm reservoirs. How can farmers get them full for the summer, which we need, given our changing climate, with more rain in winter and drier summers?

I love SUDS—I get very geekily excited about sustainable drainage systems. I know I am shocking you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will try to convince you that they can be really nice, and they can be spaces for nature as well. I am not winning, am I?

[Peter Swallow]

I completely agree with the Minister. There are many SUDS in Bracknell Forest that have been delivered as part of alternative natural green spaces, and they create lovely nature corridors in our community. I just wanted to put that on the record.

[Emma Hardy]

This is like geeks united—we love our SUDS! They are brilliant.

The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is right: the point about the maintenance of SUDS has been raised a few times. It is okay to build them—I actually think most are built and designed in a very effective way—but there is also the question of how we ensure they are maintained and who is responsible for that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. Member will know that a national listing framework is being introduced to tackle some of the issues that he describes. He will also know that it was a manifesto commitment to introduce specialist rape courts. The Ministry of Justice is determined to do that, so that victims of rape and serious sexual violence are not waiting years for their cases to get to court.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

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

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

This week, I announced the national roll-out of the early victims’ right to review scheme. From Monday, if the Crown Prosecution Service is considering dropping a case, rape and serious sexual assault survivors across England and Wales will have the right for that view to be reviewed by a second independent prosecutor before a final decision is taken. I have sat with advocates and survivors who fight every day, and are determined for the system to change. This week, we have changed it.

[Peter Swallow]

My right hon. and learned Friend is right that the system needs to change. I have been contacted by a constituent who has waited four years for her day in court, following her ex-partner being charged with coercive and controlling behaviour. She has seen her trial date repeatedly pushed back, often within two weeks of when it was due to start. My right hon. and learned Friend will know that this is a well-known tactic that abusers use to continue the harassment of their victims, to delay justice, and, ultimately, to frustrate their victims and urge them to drop out of the trial altogether. What work are the Government doing to stop this tactic, and ensure that victims like my constituent see the justice that they deserve?

[The Solicitor General]

I commend the bravery and courage of my hon. Friend’s constituent in coming forward, and I am very sorry to hear about the additional trauma that they have faced waiting for justice to be served. As well as tackling the backlog to reduce delays, this Government are committed to supporting victims. In April, I announced an additional £5 million of Treasury funding to offer domestic abuse victims in Crown court cases a pre-trial meeting with the prosecution team. These crucial meetings will support victims in the lead-up to their trial. A similar service is already offered to victims of rape and serious sexual assault, and I am pleased that we are now able to pilot that for victims of domestic abuse in three CPS areas.

Thames Water

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

The hon. Lady is right to point out that these are natural monopolies and that there is no competition. I do not think nationalisation is a silver bullet in this regard. I point out to her that the Government are facing big fiscal pressures in all sorts of other areas, but we stand ready for all eventualities.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Thames Water was responsible for a third of all major pollution incidents in 2025. Now its creditors want to jack up my constituents’ bills, delay improvements to infrastructure and dodge future fines. My constituents are being failed. I welcome the action the Secretary of State has taken today, but I urge her to go even further and put Thames Water under special measures.

[Emma Reynolds]

It is because of my concern about the delays to improvements in infrastructure and the environment that I sent the letter to Ofwat. Can I reassure my hon. Friend on one point? I have never even considered the idea that the Environment Agency would let this company off any fines. The agency will continue to perform its duties in holding Thames Water and all other water companies to account, and will enforce against them should they breach their statutory obligations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I know that there will be attendance from Foreign Office officials on that, and I agree with my hon. Friend that the Mongolian COP in August is equally important. It is important with these COPs that we do not look at climate, desertification and nature separately. We need to bring the three Rio conventions much closer together so that we get the synergies. Desertification has not traditionally been seen as a problem in this country but, as the planet warms and our climate changes, we need to take the issue seriously.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

10. What steps she is taking to help clean waterways in the Thames Valley.

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

We are taking decisive action to clean up waterways in the Thames valley, tackling pollution from water companies, agriculture and urban run-off. The Environment Agency carried out more than 800 inspections of Thames Water assets this year, holding water companies to account and improving water quality for local communities.

[Peter Swallow]

Last week there was a major fire in Bracknell, and I pay tribute to the emergency services, Bracknell Forest council, local businesses and the community, which all came together to respond. Alongside the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), I have since contacted the Environment Agency to raise residents’ concerns about the environmental impact of the fire, including on Bracknell’s waterways, and I thank the EA for its ongoing work to mitigate the impact. What policies are in place to support nature and waterway recovery following such incidents?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important issue to the House, and I join him in paying tribute to the Environment Agency, all the emergency responders and everybody who has been working so hard. Public health advice has been issued, including precautionary guidance to avoid contact with potentially contaminated material. The incident is under investigation to assess regulatory compliance and to determine whether enforcement action is required, and I am happy to meet him to see whether it has been dealt with to his satisfaction and whether there is any more help I can give him.

Independent Water Commission

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Thames Water has spent thousands of hours dumping sewage into the River Blackwater in Sandhurst and the Cut in Bracknell. Under this Government, it has been hit by the largest fine ever and its bonuses have been blocked, but now it seems to think that it should be allowed to get away with giving its bosses bonuses—that it has a special right not to have to pay those fines. Will the Secretary of State tell Thames Water to jog on?

[Steve Reed]

I think my hon. Friend has already done the job for me.

Thames Water

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

The problems facing the water sector are to do with failures of governance and regulation. We need to tackle the actual problems, not the imagined ones. If we were to seek to nationalise the water sector, that would cost in excess of £100 billion that would have to be taken away from services such as the national health service or education. It would take years to unpick the current model of ownership, during which time there would be no investment and water pollution would get worse. From the example of Scotland, we know that nationalisation is not the answer, because there are also problems with pollution there. We will ensure that our priority is pure water, not the purity of the hon. Lady’s ideology.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

As Thames Water dumped sewage into the Cut and the Blackwater in my constituency, the Conservative Government washed their hands not in it, but of it. This Government are acting to ban bonuses, to issue the biggest fine we have seen from Ofwat and to bring in criminal liability. As we seek more action to get to grips with the Thames Water crisis, will the Secretary of State commit to putting two things at the forefront of his mind: first, our environment and cleaning the sewage; and, secondly, making sure that customers and our constituents get a fair deal?

[Steve Reed]

I am sure my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we have launched 81 criminal investigations into water companies for pollution and other failings—a dramatic increase on what we inherited from the previous Government. I am sure he will recall that they cut the resources to the regulator in half. Despite the appalling financial inheritance, we increased resources by 9% at the Budget and we have now introduced the polluter pays principle, so that where there is a successful prosecution of a water company, that company will pay the price of the investigation, so that further investigations and prosecutions can follow.

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.