Independent Water Commission
Debate between Robbie Moore and Steve Reed(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for prior sight of his statement.
Fourteen years in opposition—and this is what the Labour party has to offer. Labour Members have had more than a decade to craft a clear package of policies, listen to campaigners and prepare to govern, yet what they have brought to the House today illustrates no sign of any ambition. This is a sign of hesitation. It is a way to delay the difficult decisions and buy themselves more time. It is part of a growing trend that unfortunately we are seeing consistently from this new Labour Government, across all Departments: announce a review, a taskforce and yet another commission, and hope the public do not notice that really they never had much of a plan at all.
That approach is simply not going to wash with the bill payers. Before the election, the Secretary of State toured the country with campaigners like Feargal Sharkey, promising radical change to the sector. He is now in power, and what has he actually achieved so far? He spent the entire election campaign telling voters that he wanted to put water company bosses in the dock, but we can see from the Government’s announcements on the Water (Special Measures) Bill that it will achieve no such thing, as campaigners and industry experts have already pointed out. Nor will the Bill provide any reassurance whatever for investors. Rather marvellously, the Secretary of State has managed not only to frustrate campaigners, but to disenfranchise investors from any long-term aspirations to invest in the sector.
The Secretary of State says that he has announced a ban on water company bonuses. Hang on: that was a policy that we brought forward in our time in government and that the Secretary of State is now attempting to reannounce and pass off as his own. It was the Conservatives who announced a ban on water company bosses’ bonuses, linked shareholder dividends to environmental performance, quadrupled water company inspections, fast-tracked investments to cut spills and launched a whistleblowing portal for water company workers to report breaches.
It is surprising to hear the Secretary of State claim that his Government are truly serious about this issue, when their proposals are less firm than the measures delivered by the previous Government. He could take real action right now by progressing the last Conservative Administration’s plans for an automatic ban on water company bosses’ bonuses when offences take place. Rehashing announcements already set in motion by the Conservative Government, putting forward policies that will not actually put more pressure on water company bosses and then simply pressing pause on a year-long review will not result in the widespread change that Labour promised its voters.
The Secretary of State acknowledges that the announced review will make no recommendations that affect the current price review ’24 process, meaning that there will be no chance of the Government considering making any significant change until 2029 at the earliest. Will he provide an outline of the timeframe associated with actual recommendations from the review being implemented and put in place? When is any real benefit from this further review, taskforce or commission likely to be experienced, not only for the water industry, in terms of infrastructure improvements, but for the bill payer and the environment? It seems to me that the Secretary of State is just kicking the can down the road with another review, another taskforce and another commission, and removing himself from any of the tough decisions.
The Secretary of State said that the review would have no impact on the price review ’24 process. Will he outline exactly when the positive impacts will come? By my calculations, it will not be until 2029 at the earliest. Will he also outline the impact of the review on the measures proposed in the Water (Special Measures) Bill? What will be done if the recommendations do not sit comfortably with the current proposals?
One cannot help concluding that the Secretary of State is out of depth on this issue, cannot deliver on the tough language that he promised in the run-up to the general election and is now doing nothing more than attempting to kick the tough decisions down the road and into the long grass. This Secretary of State seems to be all bark and no bite.
Steve Reed
Well, that was all a little bit embarrassing, wasn’t it? The previous Government had 14 years in power, our rivers, lakes and seas are awash with record levels of pollution, and that is all the Conservatives have to say. I took action seven days after the general election: I brought the water chief execs into my office, and we agreed that money earmarked for investment will be ringfenced so that it cannot be diverted to pay multimillion-pound bonuses to water chief execs who oversee failure in the water sector, as happened on the shadow Minister’s watch. The commission will reset the sector that the Conservatives broke, and clean up the water that they polluted. It will report to the Government in June and inform subsequent legislation.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Robbie Moore and Steve Reed(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Sound management of water companies is of course vital if customers are to receive the high level of service they expect and environmental performance obligations are to be strictly adhered to. Some water companies are better managed than others, so will the Secretary of State guarantee that in his efforts to hold water companies to account, no offer of a regulatory easement will be provided—in other words, no permission to lower standards, relax environmental permits or reduce agreed levels of investment will be provided to any water company, no matter their financial circumstances, by the Government or the regulator?
Steve Reed
I will be announcing later this autumn—in just a few weeks’ time—a review of the entire water sector, including regulation. In particular, I want to make sure that regulation is as tough as possible to ensure that the practices and, frankly, the abuses that were going on can no longer happen. Part of that will be complete transparency about what is going on—on the part of the water companies, and also, I have to say, on the part of Government. It was very disappointing that, when he was a Minister, the hon. Gentleman tried to cover up the extent of sewage spills before the election, telling Environment Agency officials not to put the key figures on the front page of its environmental portal.
Robbie Moore
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
So there we have it: the Secretary of State’s first outing at the Dispatch Box, and he was not able to clearly answer the question I asked. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in fulfilling his obligation to hold water companies to account, he will not issue regulatory easements, no matter their financial circumstances? Will he answer that question clearly right now from the Dispatch Box?
Steve Reed
As I have already said, we are looking to strengthen, not weaken the regulation. The regulation was inappropriate. It is not just the regulation itself, but the lack of resources the regulators have had. That is why the Water (Special Measures) Bill we are introducing will allow the regulators to claw back resources from water companies that are successfully prosecuted, so that they have the firepower to prosecute further wrongdoing by those water companies or others responsible for it.
Storm Henk
Debate between Robbie Moore and Steve Reed(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
Storm Henk has wreaked havoc across the country: thousands of homes are severely damaged, businesses have been devastated, and farms and crops have been destroyed. My heart goes out to all those affected. I join the Minister in thanking the emergency services, the Environment Agency, local authorities and volunteers for their response, working around the clock to keep people safe.
About 2,000 properties have been flooded to date and much of the country remains under water, yet the Prime Minister does not think it is serious enough to call a Cobra meeting. The Government’s failure to act effectively against the risk of floods has cost the economy billions of pounds since 2010. The Government estimate losses to be at £1.3 billion a year on average. With one in six homes now at risk of flooding, homeowners must be horrified that the Government have done little more than stare out of the window and watch the rain come down, with the previous Secretary of State blaming the fact that it came down from the wrong direction.
While we cannot stop the rain falling, we can and should do more to protect communities, businesses and farms from the devastation of flooding. Last October, the Environment Agency found that more than 4,000 English flood defences were rated “poor” or “very poor”, while the same agency was found to have underspent the budget that had been allocated to it by £310 million. That money should have been used to protect against flood damage.
I visited Retford in Nottinghamshire and met heartbroken families who had lost everything. That town was allocated £11.7 million for flood defences two years ago, but shockingly, less than half of 1% of that money has actually been spent. The Government have clearly failed to put in place the robust co-ordination between central Government and agencies on the ground to ensure that people are kept safe in these circumstances, and devastatingly, working families are left to pick up the pieces.
Labour has proposed a Cobra-style flood resilience taskforce to make sure that communities are protected. It would meet every winter ahead of the peak season for flooding to co-ordinate flood preparation between central Government and agencies and local authorities on the ground, identifying areas most at risk and making sure that allocated funding is used to build flood defences, dig out drainage systems, dredge rivers and put in place natural flood management schemes, such as planting more trees upstream to help the land hold more water.
Enough of this Government’s sticking-plaster politics: we need to get ahead of the problem, not just clean up afterwards. Communities deserve the reassurance that if the worst happens, there is a plan in place to keep people, their homes and their businesses safe, so will the Minister explain why the Government have still not fully mapped out which communities around the UK are most at risk from flooding, so that appropriate support can be put in place? Will he confirm how much of the funding allocated for flood defences remains unspent? When do the Government intend to upgrade flood defences that are found to be in poor and very poor condition? Will the Minister update the House on what conversations are taking place with insurers so that people whose homes are at risk from flooding remain able to insure them fully? Will the Government convene a Cobra meeting to ensure that Ministers are working across all Government Departments to keep people safe?
Robbie Moore
Let me pick up on the shadow spokesperson’s points about Cobra. I am absolutely right in saying that the Government held a Cobra unit Cabinet Office meeting last Tuesday to promote cross-sector preparedness action, way in advance of Storm Henk taking place, and cross-Government meetings, chaired by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as the lead Government Department for flooding, were held on many occasions last week and throughout the weekend. There has been daily contact between DEFRA and resilience partners across the Government, including the Cabinet Office and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and local resilience forums also had preparedness meetings and were prepared to convene strategic co-ordination groups to manage the local response. I know from my own visits last week and over the weekend just how quickly and efficiently the support has been rolling out.
I confirm to the House that since 2010 we have invested £6 billion to better protect 600,000 properties against flooding and coastal erosion. We are on track to spend £5.2 billion on flood defence schemes in the next six-year period—that is double the £2.6 billion previously allocated and it is better protecting more homes. Over the period of Storm Henk, 75,000 homes were better protected as a result of this Government’s infrastructure and the investment that we have put in place.
The Opposition refer to planting trees, but this Government go further. We recognise that planting trees is one part—a single part—of the solution, but we are going much further by doubling the amount of investment from £2.6 billion to £5.2 billion over the next spending review period. That includes £100 million to support communities that have experienced repeated flooding. The first 53 projects that are set to benefit were announced last April. Over the period of Storm Henk, we have seen the benefits of the work we did in 2022 to better protect Burton upon Trent, which had the highest water levels with the River Trent peaking. That is where our investment is working.
We are also taking swift action by rolling out the flood recovery fund, which will better protect households, businesses and farmers. That was announced this weekend and the eight chief executives of the local authorities it will benefit have already been written to.