(3 days, 16 hours ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
I first commend my friend, the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for the manner in which he introduced the debate and for bringing his personal experience of photo safari tourism to the Chamber. Those of us who have had the privilege of seeing animals in the wild in Africa can only marvel at the experience. It is unlike anything else, and certainly unlike anything that anybody ever sees in a zoo.
There will be an element of repetition in this debate, but the points are worth restating. It is suggested that trophy hunting contributes to conservation and the African economy. That is a myth. When Ian Seretse Khama was President of Botswana he banned trophy hunting and promoted photo tourism. The economy grew, wildlife was conserved and the populations grew. It was a win-win. His successor—wined, dined and probably bribed by Safari Club International—overturned the ban. Tourism fell and wildlife suffered, as did the economy. That classic example kicks the bottom out of the argument that this issue has anything whatsoever to do with anything other than hard cash. It is certainly true that a very small number of very wealthy and corrupt people in Africa benefit considerably, mainly from the United States’ trophy hunting tourist trade.
There is a myth that trophy hunting also involves some kind of macho courage. Men, and occasionally women, go and slaughter wild endangered species. What is courageous about slaughtering an effectively tamed animal that has been bred and fed in captivity, caged in a small area and then murdered so that the killer can have a photograph taken with the carcase and the body parts shipped back home to be mounted on the wall? A yellow streak runs right through those people and they are revolting. It is time that everybody stood up and said so.
In the last Parliament, I had the privilege of chairing the all-party parliamentary group on banning trophy hunting. I applaud the work that continues to be done by Eduardo Gonçalves and his campaign. He has been an absolute stalwart to the cause and he deserves our thanks.
In the last Parliament, two Bills were brought before the House of Commons. One was a Conservative-led Bill, presented by the then Member of Parliament for Crawley; the other very similar Bill was brought by John Spellar, then a Labour Member of the Commons and now Lord Spellar in the other place. Both those Bills went through virtually unopposed, but they were killed off by the neanderthal tendency in the upper House.
With great respect to my friend the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst, the idea that he will present a Bill—I would support that, of course—if the Government cannot find time to do this is a forlorn cause. This has to be Government legislation. I understand that a Bill has already been prepared by DEFRA. The point has been made that it features in the Labour party manifesto, and as far as I can see, there is no reason whatsoever why this measure should not be brought swiftly on to the statute book. It can be done; it must be done. The time is right—in fact, it is beyond time. We may not be able to ban trophy hunting, but we certainly have the power to ban the import of the product of that trade, and we should do so now.
This really is not good enough. The point has been made over and over again in this Chamber. All this work has already been done, twice. The Bill has been approved; the Minister’s Department has a drafted Bill ready to go. There is ample parliamentary time for the Government to introduce the legislation now. The time for kicking the can down the road is over. It has to be done now.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution. I hope I have been clear that we are committed to delivering this. We are committed to making sure that we bring forward the most robust piece of legislation, which is defensible and workable, and it will happen when the parliamentary timetable allows within this Parliament.
Let me conclude by saying that protecting species is central to our wider ambition to halt biodiversity loss and safeguard nature for future generations. We are determined that the UK should play its part, and we will deliver on our commitment to ban hunting trophy imports in a way that is robust, enforceable and delivers positive outcomes for conservation. I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst for bringing this important issue before the House, and all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate.
(4 days, 16 hours ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Before I call Daniel Zeichner to move the motion, it may be convenient for everybody to know that we appear to have, in addition to the mover, seven Back-Bench contributors and a couple of Members who I know wish to intervene. I am not going to impose a time limit at this stage. It rather depends on how long Mr Zeichner chooses to speak for, but I think we are probably looking at around a maximum of seven minutes per person. On that basis, we ought to be able to get everybody in. If that changes, I will let Members know.
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of a fishing and seafood sector strategy.
It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. It is also a pleasure to lead a debate on this important question.
Before I begin, I should declare that I served as the independent chair of the process that produced “An Action Plan for a Thriving and Sustainable UK Fishing Industry”, a weighty tome recently published by the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries, which is the stimulus for this debate. I pay tribute to the group’s co-chairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), for their leadership on that piece of work. I also thank the many fishermen and women and other stakeholders from across the UK who gave evidence to the all-party group’s process. I also pay particular tribute to Mike Cohen and the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations for having pursued me on this policy idea for many years, and to Lia ní Aodha and her team, who did so much of the basic research, organising and drafting.
I note that it is almost exactly five years ago to the day—somewhat to my overnight surprise—that I found myself in this very Chamber as the shadow Fisheries Minister speaking for the Opposition, a job I hugely enjoyed both in opposition and as a Minister, not least because I met and got to know so many very special people and enjoyed many debates with many familiar friends who are in this Chamber today. I am delighted to see the very wide range of geographical and political representation in the Chamber today.
As an island nation, no part of the United Kingdom is more than 70 miles from the sea, yet we sometimes display a rather curious lack of awareness of the sea and, at times, a tendency to undervalue the waters around us and the people and communities who depend upon them. Fishing and seafood are a case in point. They are a comparatively modest line in the national accounts, it is true, but it is a sector whose value is woven into the identity of places such as Brixham, Grimsby, Kilkeel, Milford Haven, Peterhead and Shetland, and whose true value must be measured in the good jobs and vibrant communities it sustains around our coasts and islands, the regional economies that it supports, the nutritious, low-carbon food it puts on plates at home and around the world, and its contribution to national resilience—something we have heard much about in recent times.
Since leaving the common fisheries policy, the UK has built an impressive domestic management framework centred on the Fisheries Act 2020, the joint fisheries statement and a suite of fisheries management plans. As an independent coastal state, we have regulatory autonomy and the resources for a thriving industry, including fishing knowledge, productive waters off our coast and a still vibrant and diverse fishing sector. However, during my time as Minister, I was struck by the fact that we do not have a strategy that brings those together and connects fisheries management with the wider decisions on energy, marine space, skills, trade and food that will shape the sector’s future. That gap is felt by those who fish every day as they face rising operating and fuel costs, stocks shifting under climate change, growing competition for space at sea from offshore energy development, the expansion of marine protected areas, and difficulties in recruiting and retaining skilled crews. Many of those pressures are also felt downstream by processes around our coasts.
Several hon. Members rose—
Order. Before we proceed, I should say that Mr Shannon has courteously informed me that, owing to a change in business in the House, he is required in a Committee elsewhere and is double-booked, as is so often the case. I am going to call Mr Shannon and then allow him to leave, on the strict understanding that he returns as swiftly as possible and, in any event, is back for the winding-up speeches.
Several hon. Members rose—
Order. Mr Carmichael, I understand the pressures on time, but you are the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. If you wish to speak briefly and then leave, I am quite willing to accommodate you.
Several hon. Members rose—
Order. We are looking at five minutes a head now, please.
Noah Law
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the need for a democratisation of many of the quotas. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
As we all know, not all fishing effort has an equivalent ecological impact. Larger, industrialised and—in my sector, at least—foreign vessels are likely to have a disproportionate impact on stocks, while the smaller vessels of our domestic, largely inshore fleets tend to employ more selective, low-impact fishing methods. Ultimately, the smaller vessels that make up our fleet in Cornwall and across the wider sector act as the bedrock of both employment and environmental stewardship. Those twin priorities should be core Labour priorities. Fishermen tell us about the pressures, which really are mounting in the six to 12 nautical mile zone. Will the Minister consider the efficacy in our sector of potential measures in the six to 12 nautical mile zone, and whether a 221 kW engine-size restriction could meet the employment and environmental challenges? Similar measures have been employed effectively and selectively on a sectoral basis, as in the case of fly seining and beam trawling recently in area 7 and coastal waters, respectively, as well as longer-dated precedent in continental waters, with measures for the North sea plaice box.
Finally, in the light of forthcoming responses to our fisheries management plan consultations, I would welcome the introduction not just of some of the proposed technical measures on engine size, but of an integrated approach to biodiversity targets, a climate-sensitive approach to stock rebuilding—that has been alluded to but not spelled out explicitly—that recognises the reality of mixed fisheries, and recognition of the spatial challenges that we have heard about and the need for integrated marine spatial planning, as so masterfully highlighted in the action plan of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge.
Finally and briefly from the Back Benches, I call Mr Myer.
Luke Myer
I will discuss my second issue briefly. It was a national story. For those unfamiliar with what happened, in 2021 an enormous number of dead crustaceans were washed up on our beaches, followed by a collapse in catches of as much as 80%, by some fishermen’s estimates.. That was devastating for the local industry; boats were sold and businesses closed. The most troubling thing is that, five years later, we still do not have a definitive explanation of what happened. That battle for truth has been documented in a new film, “All Rivers Spill Their Stories to the Sea”, and we will hold a screening of it in Parliament for parliamentarians shortly. I encourage all Members to attend.
I pay tribute to the local authorities who came together to establish a working group to look into the issue. I pay particular tribute to Councillor Philip Thomson and former Councillor Rachel Creevy for working across parties to drive forward that agenda. Will the Minister look into the findings published by that working group to see whether lessons can be learned by Government? I echo the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge for science funding to be a pillar of the strategy. Ultimately, if we want to restore confidence among those in the industry, we must demonstrate that our fishermen’s knowledge is valued, and that when issues arise, they will be thoroughly investigated and those directly affected can shape and direct what happens next.
Our fishing communities do not lack ambition; what they need is a Government who are prepared to work alongside them to remove unnecessary obstacles and safeguard their environment, and to give them a greater say in the decisions that shape their future. I hope that that is the ambition that guides this strategy, which we hope to see in the near future.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. Mr MacDonald, you have about eight minutes.
(4 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberI thank my hon. Friend for the way he has engaged with me on thinking through the design for the scheme next year. He is right to say that some farmers reported technical issues with the application service, which prevented them from applying. It is normal to receive such reports after the application windows close. Some of the applications will be valid, and the RPA is currently working through them as we speak. If my hon. Friend has any particular examples that he wants to share with me, I can certainly take them away and raise questions with the relevant officials in my Department.
Kent was once rightly regarded as the garden of England, but faced with intolerable pressures on their finances, many of the small farmers in Kent—having looked to the sustainability scheme for help and having been denied it—are now having to sell their land for housing and other development, further denying us national sustainability in food. Can the Minister tell the House how many farmers in Kent are benefiting from the scheme?
We are publishing the figures for applications across counties and constituencies, so I can certainly make that information available to the right hon. Member. More broadly, he makes a point about the demands that farmers are facing, and our farming road map, published earlier this year, is a 25-year plan to commit to a more profitable, productive sector and to building resilience in the farming community. I am very keen to work in partnership with the farmers in his constituency and area to make sure that is delivered.
(5 months ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
I apologise for the untimely interruption earlier, Mr Twigg— if I had been in the Chair, I would have been shouting at me. I wanted to open my mobile phone because at half-past 4 this afternoon a lady from Herne Bay texted me to say:
“Sewage is being discharged into Herne Bay from a combined sewage overflow”.
That is a common occurrence, and most Members present who represent coastal seats will have had messages like that over and over again. We can go around this circuit as many times as we like; we went around it last Wednesday, and then again on Monday, so I suspect that the Minister will get fed up listening to a cracked record.
Yet again, I have to highlight the fact that we are building hundreds and hundreds of houses in our coastal towns and hinterland, for which there is no water supply and no adequate sewerage. I learned today from one of my excellent local councillors in Dover, Martin Porter, that Southern Water is resisting a planning application for a village, simply because it cannot provide a facility to deal with the sewage the little estate will generate, any more than South East Water can supply the water that will be needed. Yet, as we have discussed in the last few days, the water companies have a statutory duty to provide water to every house built and—Southern Water is the sewage authority for both the areas I have mentioned—to dispose of the sewage, but they simply cannot do it.
Yet again, I make this point: will the Minister please take on board the need to ensure that the water companies are statutory consultees for all planning applications, so that we get a clear steer as to whether water supplies and sewage facilities are available, before yet more houses are built?
(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberI thank my hon. Friend for his passionate work on this issue. I know how much he cares about the damage that over-abstraction is doing to our environment and to nature. On the water delivery taskforce, we have Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers and Treasury representatives all looking at how we can make the fastest and most effective change to our water system. They look particularly at water infrastructure because, as has been highlighted already, one of the problems is that we have been unable to build the infrastructure we need, which is resulting in damage to the environment now.
Since Mr Speaker allowed me to ask an urgent question on Wednesday last week, to which the Minister helpfully responded, it will not surprise her to know that I have received quite a number of public comments concerning the performance of South East Water, most of which are not repeatable before the watershed.
Two issues clearly have come to light and struck a chord. First, it really is time that the water companies were allowed to act as consultees in planning applications, because we are building house after house after house without saying where the water is going to come from, and of course the water companies have a statutory duty to provide it. The second point that has come through loud and clear underscores something that the Minister said to me, which is that it really is time that every new house built had a grey water system, because we are pouring water that we cannot afford to waste literally down the drain.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for this question, and for his question last week as well. As I mentioned last week, the water delivery taskforce looks at planning. It is looking jointly with MHCLG and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at where we are building homes, whether we have the right water and what water infrastructure is needed. There has been some retrofitting of properties in Cambridge to make them more water efficient, but the right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point about the use of grey water. That is definitely on my agenda.
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
(Urgent Question): Will the Secretary of State for the Environment make a statement following the disruption of water supplies throughout the area served by South East Water during the spring recess?
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for asking this question. I will update the House on the water supply disruption in Kent, and I want to begin by expressing my sympathy for those affected by the disruption. Being without water is distressing at any time, but particularly during a period of hot weather, alongside school revision and examinations. This is now the third major outage affecting South East Water customers in recent months, and it is simply not acceptable.
South East Water reported that thousands of customers were impacted by supply disruptions over the course of the incident, and I am pleased that normal water supply has now been restored. I met the interim chair and senior operational staff twice during the course of the incident, including on Sunday, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs team met them daily to hold them to account for the incident and to request that they set out by the end of this week how they will compensate customers.
Water supply disruption causes significant cost to businesses and impacts the most vulnerable in society. I have heard of a 100-year-old lady without water, and a care home in Cranbrook using wet wipes to keep their residents clean. This is simply unacceptable, and the company must take urgent action.
I thank all those working in the Kent local resilience forum, the local authorities, the health and social care partners, and civil servants in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and DEFRA for their hard work to support those affected. I am also grateful to operational staff and volunteers who worked on the ground to restore supplies and provide alternative water.
A reliable supply of clean water is one of the foundations of a healthy, functioning society. The situation demands further bold action to deliver fundamental long-term reform, and that is why we are delivering whole-scale reform to the water sector. Through our clean water Bill, we will create a new single, powerful regulator, giving us for the first time a clear system-wide view of company performance and the tools to intervene more quickly when companies fall short. We will put consumers first by introducing a water ombudsman, ensuring that customers have a stronger voice and clearer routes to redress. We have already passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which introduced the toughest sentencing powers ever applied to lawbreaking water company executives, and introduced powers to ban unjustified bonuses.
It is vital that South East Water and all water companies deliver on improvements to their infrastructure, but most of all, they must continue to improve their ability to maintain water supplies to their customers, whatever the weather.
I thank the Minister for her obvious and genuine concern, and for the measures that she has sought to take. I join her in thanking the very many organisations that have sought to help us through this problem, and I include in that the employees on the ground at South East Water.
Mr Speaker, you know that thousands of people in Herne Bay in my constituency and thousands more in Whitstable, in the constituency represented by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), were left without water during the four hottest days of the year so far. That is totally inexcusable and totally unacceptable. Not only were households disrupted, but at the very time when they should have been having a glorious start to their season, guest houses, hotels, restaurants and pubs were shut, care homes had frightful problems, and a doctor’s surgery lost consultations, because they did not have water.
There is no quick fix. The Broad Oak reservoir should have been built 50 years ago. It will take 10 years if we start tomorrow, but we have to try to make sure that in the coming months, because there will be more hot weather, this does not happen for a fifth time across Kent.
Finally, I do believe that the water companies face a very real problem in the regulations as they stand. They are required by law to connect every new house to a supply, but they are not consultees in planning applications—we have to correct that. They have to be given a voice because they cannot spirit water out of thin air.
I share the right hon. Gentleman’s outrage at the situation. He is quite right to say that one of the answers is the reservoir, which will take a long time to build, but this is not just about the reservoir. It is also about desalination plants, and the need for more urgent action to tackle leakage; too much water is lost through leakage. Across Government, we are looking at building standards for new homes and at how we can make homes more water-efficient, because this is a big problem. I hope that I can offer the right hon. Gentleman some reassurance by telling him that the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority has been doing some mapping to identify areas of the country that have more acute water shortage problems and what we need to resolve them.
I asked the company, “What are the actions you can take now?” There is no excuse for poor communication; that is something it can fix overnight. It can also improve its relationship with the local resilience forum. That does not cost any money. It can look at its bulk supply deal with Southern Water—that is another action it can take. It can accelerate its work on leakage reduction—that is another action it can take. Fundamentally, though, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right: the answer is building reservoirs and having greater water storage across our country. Quite frankly, I think it is that we have a situation where we complain about the drought all through the summer and complain about the rain all through the winter, yet have no way of storing that water. I am urgently trying to change that.
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He is making it clear that biodiversity and our natural environment are in complete crisis. Given that, would he agree that the slogan “Back the builders, not the blockers” is one of the worst slogans that the Labour party has ever come up with? People do care about local democracy, biodiversity and nature, so that slogan should be put in the bin, where it belongs—the recycling bin, of course.
Order. In the time available for this debate, that almost constitutes a speech. I had intended to say this after the hon. Gentleman moved the motion, but I had better say it now: please understand that any person who intervenes in this debate will be expected to stay until the end. It is not a case of speak and go.
Chris Hinchliff
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. As I was saying, the ecosystem services—including water, food, clean air and critical resources—are all at risk. Even our soils, the very substance of growth, have lost around half their organic carbon, threatening the sustainability of our agriculture and our ability to keep our citizens fed.
More than that, however, the collapse of England’s biodiversity is a threat to our culture, national identity and one of the essential components of happiness. As iconic species continue to disappear from these islands, I wonder how many of us in this room will see a swallow or mayfly to herald summer this year?
Several hon. Members rose—
Order. We are faced with a very difficult situation. I have to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 5.10 pm, which means, given the number of people on the speakers’ list, I am going to start with a time limit of two minutes. That may not get everybody in. I am not going to call anybody who has already intervened, for a start, and if anybody else feel like dropping out and intervening, I would welcome that. I do not normally do this, but it may help if I give Members the batting order as it stands at the moment: on the Opposition Benches, we have Danny Chambers, Olly Glover, Edward Morello, Tim Farron, John Milne, Roz Savage and Jim Shannon, and on the Government Benches, we have Barry Gardiner, Terry Jermy, Martin Rhodes, Michelle Welsh, Rachael Maskell, Tristan Osborne and Anna Gelderd. It is up to you how you play this, but I am going to stop calling Back-Bench Members at 5.10 pm.
The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) was one of the finest on the environment that I have heard in this House for a long time. One day, the Government will see sense and he will become Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
I will cut most of what I wanted to say. The national security assessment, mentioned by my hon. Friend, says:
“Cascading risks of ecosystem degradation are likely to include geopolitical instability, economic insecurity, conflict migration and increased inter-state competition for resources.”
Why is that not the subject of a great debate in Parliament? Yesterday, we had the Prime Minister’s vital statement on Iran. The whole House sat in a packed Chamber to discuss the US bombing of that evil regime and the security implications for the world. Yet we have our own national security assessment telling us that global ecosystem degradation and collapse is one of the most serious threats to UK national security, and we still have had no debate on it.
The collapse of biodiversity over my lifetime is not a matter of spreadsheets. It is felt in silent fields that were once singing meadows, in poisoned waters that were once shimmering streams, in children who have grown up in a depleted world without knowing how much has been lost, or how abnormal is the world they inhabit. The monitoring and enforcement system currently in place under environmental regulators lacks capacity and is chronically poor.
Take our water sector: of the 2,778 serious pollution incidents reported in 2024, officials downgraded 98% as “minor incidents”, yet only 496 were actually attended or inspected before being downgraded. There can be no doubt that the regulatory system is as rotten as the pipes the water companies have abandoned since 1989. I welcome the Red Lines for Nature campaign as far as it goes, but that is scarcely far enough when it talks of no further weakening of environmental protections and no funding cuts to environmental bodies.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I join other Members in congratulating the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) on this important debate. I, like many others, would love to speak about a whole host of things, but given the time constraints, I will just talk about chalk streams.
Chalk streams are globally rare ecosystems; there are approximately 200 in the world, and 85% of them are in England. They are internationally significant freshwater habitats and should be a conservation priority. In West Dorset, our chalk streams—the River Frome, Wraxall brook and West Compton stream—are in decline, alongside the salmon populations in them, because we have not had proper environmental protections or biodiversity being properly prioritised. The Rivers Trust sewage discharge map shows that the South Winterbourne was affected by storm overflows 223 times in 2020, for a total of more than 2,641 hours.
My proposal is that we introduce a blue flag style standard for chalk streams, mirroring coastal bathing water classifications—clear, public facing measures that are visible and easy to understand. Mandatory, regular testing and enforceable consequences for failure would help rebuild public trust and provide the transparency that people rightly demand.
Given that I have spoken far faster than I thought I would, I will also make a plea for the upcoming water White Paper to make water companies statutory consultees on all new planning projects, and to make rainwater harvesting mandatory on all new builds. Pre pipe solutions are the key to taking the strain off our sewerage system. The water White Paper is a fantastic opportunity for the Government to do those three things. If they do them, it will be brilliant for the public.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
Nature underpins our wellbeing and our economy, and in South East Cornwall we truly understand that. Take the Cornish black bee: hardy, resilient and well suited to our Atlantic winds, it heads out to gather pollen even in unfavourable conditions, and that determination feels very familiar to Cornish people. The Cornish chough tells a similar story. Once lost from Cornwall, it returned in 2001, and its comeback shows that, with the right protection, species can recover.
I am proud to serve as a seagrass champion, because seagrasses are one of the most powerful natural climate solutions: they absorb and store carbon at a remarkable rate, soften wave energy and reduce coastal erosion—something extremely needed since the start of this year, as Cornwall has been battered by back-to-back storms that have severely impacted my region. Protecting seagrass meadows is a practical climate action and a sound economic policy.
In my local area, fishing and farming have shaped the economics of our villages and towns for generations. They rely on healthy soils, clean water and abundant seas, so clean water remains a priority. The proposal for designated bathing water in Lostwithiel is therefore very welcome, and I encourage residents to engage with the consultation on that before it closes at the end of the month. However, my constituents are rightly frustrated by the impact of sewage discharges, and confidence in South West Water has been undermined by a history of poor transparency. I call for decisive action to improve its operations, alongside meaningful engagement with local residents, businesses and me.
On Dartmoor, biodiversity and traditional land management are closely linked. Will the Minister provide further information on how the sustainable farming incentive could play a part in protecting the Dartmoor ponies, which were at risk under the previous Government? Finally, I ask her to continue to focus on rural and coastal areas that have long been forgotten and to use Cornwall and our unique natural heritage as a pilot area in future Government schemes. I look forward to working with her in Cornwall in the future.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. You have five minutes.
(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberMy hon. Friend raises a really important point. He will have noticed that we published the PFAS—perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances—plan earlier this week, which looks at the issues of chemical pollution and how we can tackle it more effectively. We recognise the serious concerns at Tideswell brook. Through our water White Paper we are reforming waste water regulation and enabling earlier interventions. I will be keeping a close eye on the situation as it develops.
On 8 January, the United States Secretary of the Interior wrote to the Secretary of State on behalf of the big game hunting industry, asking her to ensure that the Government would abandon their commitment to the ban on importing hunting trophies. In her reply, will she give a robust indication that this Government are committed to that ban?
I thank the right hon. Member for that question. We are committed to banning trophy hunting. It is a manifesto commitment, and we will take it forward.
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberNow for somebody who will take up the offer of a swim—Sir Roger Gale.
Will the Minister reassure the House that the shocking release of microplastic pellets into the seas off the channel coast is a one-off and that it has not affected and will not affect any of the beaches around the rest of the Kent coast?
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising such an important issue. I share his anger at this appalling pollution incident. The studies into exactly where the plastic pellets might end up are ongoing, but I would be more than happy to keep him up to date so that he knows what is expected to happen and when. The immediate priority is to address the environmental damage and to minimise further impacts. I have been speaking with Southern Water and the Environment Agency about this and would be happy to keep the right hon. Gentleman and the House up to date. I reassure him and the rest of the House that we find this incident unacceptable, and we will do everything we can to prevent anything like this from happening again.
For several years now, the CPS has maintained a high and steady charge rate of around 80%, and a conviction rate of 75%. This Government are taking radical action to ensure that more cases come into the system and progress through it. We have introduced Raneem’s law, which embeds domestic abuse specialists in 999 control rooms, and have launched domestic abuse protection orders, which go further than any other order to protect victims.
Will the Solicitor General discuss with the Crown Prosecution Service and the Home Secretary how best the Metropolitan police may be encouraged to expedite their inquiry into the crimes of those who aided and abetted Mohamed Fayed, so that—for the sake of those who suffered violence and rape at this hands—they can be brought to book?
The right hon. Gentleman raises a really serious and important case; I am sure the thoughts of the House are with the victims. As he is aware, I cannot speak to cases in which there are live criminal investigations, but I am grateful to him for raising this extremely important issue, which I and other ministerial colleagues are following closely.
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberBefore I call the Secretary of State to make his statement, I place on the record the fact that Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers were disappointed to see extensive coverage in the media this morning of Ministers’ responses to the Independent Water Commission, before the House has had the opportunity to consider the matter. It would be nice to think that the normal courtesies will be resumed.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have, of course, saved the bulk of my responses for you and the House this afternoon. With permission, I would like to update the House on the Government’s plans to reform the water sector.
The water industry is clearly failing. Our rivers, lakes and seas are polluted with record levels of sewage, and water pipes have been left to crumble into disrepair. I share customers’ fury at rising bills. Right now, hosepipe bans are in place across the country because not a single new reservoir has been built in over 30 years, and the lack of water infrastructure is blocking economic growth. Water companies have been allowed to profit at the expense of the British people when they should have been investing to fix our broken water pipes. They got away with this because of a broken regulatory system that has failed both customers and the environment. The public expressed their fury in last year’s general election and voted for change. That change will now come.
In just one year, we have put in place the building blocks for change. First, we restored accountability by giving the regulators more teeth and introducing a ban on unfair bonuses, severe and automatic penalties for breaking the law, and jail sentences for the most serious offences. Secondly, we are investing £104 billion of private sector funding to rebuild the water network, upgrading crumbling pipes, repairing leaks, building new sewage treatment works and digging out new reservoirs. It is the single biggest investment in the history of the water sector, and it allows me to make a new commitment to the country: this Government will cut water companies’ sewage pollution in half by the end of the decade. That is the most ambitious commitment ever made by any Government about water pollution, and it is just the start. Over a decade of national renewal, we will restore our rivers, lakes and seas to good health.
The third building block for change is today’s final report from Sir Jon Cunliffe’s Independent Water Commission. I express my thanks to Sir Jon, his officials, and all those who have contributed to this outstanding piece of work. I agree with Sir Jon that water regulation has been too weak, too complex, and ineffective. Having four separate regulators with overlapping and conflicting remits has failed both customers and the environment. Ofwat has failed to protect customers from water companies’ mismanagement of their hard-earned money, and it has failed to protect our waterways from record levels of pollution. Today, I can announce that this Labour Government will abolish Ofwat. We will bring water functions from four different regulators into one—a single powerful super-regulator responsible for the entire water sector, with the teeth it needs to enforce the high standards that the public rightly demand.
The new regulator will stand firmly on the side of customers, investors and the environment and prevent the abuses of the past. For customers, it will oversee investment and upgrade work, so that hard-working British families are never again hit by the shocking bill hikes that we saw last year as customers were left to pay the price of failure by the previous Government. For investors, it will provide the clarity and direction required for a strong partnership between Government, the sector and investors to attract billions of pounds of new funding. For the environment, it will reduce all forms of pollution to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good. We will work closely with the Welsh Government to devolve the economic regulation of water to Wales.
I will publish a White Paper this autumn giving the Government’s full response to the Independent Water Commission’s final report and launching a consultation on it. Following that, I will bring forward a new water reform Bill early in the lifetime of this Parliament. Ofwat will remain in place during the transition to the new regulator, and I will ensure that it provides the right leadership to oversee the current price review and investment plan during that time. To provide clarity during this period, I will issue an interim strategic policy statement to Ofwat and give ministerial directions to the Environment Agency setting out our expectations and requirements. We will publish a transition plan as part of our full Government response in the autumn.
Today, we are immediately taking forward a number of Sir Jon’s recommendations. First, we will establish a new statutory water ombudsman—a single, free service to help customers resolve complaints such as incorrect bills, leaking pipes or water supply failures. The new ombudsman will have the legal powers to protect customers and will bring the water dispute resolution process in line with other utilities, such as energy. It is part of the Government’s ambition to put customers at the heart of water regulation.
Secondly, we will end the era of water companies marking their own homework. We will end operator self-monitoring and transition to open monitoring to increase transparency and help restore public trust. Water companies are already required to publish data on some sewage spills within one hour. We will roll out real-time monitoring across the wastewater system, and all this data will be made publicly available online. That will ensure that the regulator and, importantly, the public have the power to hold water companies fully accountable.
Thirdly, we commit to including a regional element within the new regulator to ensure greater local involvement in water planning. By moving to a catchment-based model for water system planning, we can tackle all sources of pollution entering waterways, so that they can be cleaned up more effectively and more quickly. This will ensure—for the first time—that water infrastructure investment plans align with spatial planning to support faster regional economic growth. The lack of water infrastructure that held back development around Cambridge and Oxford for so long will not happen again.
The new regulatory framework will recognise the risks investors take and, if they meet their obligations, they will see a fair, stable return on their investment. Just last week, I signed the Government’s new water skills pledge to make sure that the sector has the skills and workforce it needs to deliver this vast investment.
This Labour Government were elected to clean up water pollution and ensure that unacceptable bill hikes can never happen again. We now have all the building blocks in place to make that happen. We are establishing a new partnership based on effective regulation, where water companies, investors, communities and the Government will work together to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good.
I was, of course, on the television show in question with the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). I think he told us six times that he had no idea—well, that much we knew. It is this Government who have a plan to clean up our waterways. We have put in place the building blocks for change, and that allows me to stand before this House and commit that by 2030 we will reduce sewage pollution from water companies by 50% as we move towards a decade of national renewal in order to clean up our waterways for good.
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and Sir Jon Cunliffe for his report and for his work in producing it. The Liberal Democrats have long argued for the abolition of Ofwat, and for the creation of a new, consolidated and powerful regulator. In fact, we put it to the Public Bill Committee and it was supported by neither the Labour party nor the Conservative party, but today’s proposal seems to include doing just that, so we strongly welcome the statement. It is a reminder to the wonderful volunteers and water campaigners across the country that their work is absolutely worth while and has made a huge difference. My message to them is: thank you so much and keep going, because we still do not know the details and the nature of the new regulator, and we still see no sign in the report of any plan to tackle the toxic nature of the water industry’s ownership structure.
Why is there no plan to change the structure of the industry itself? Even the best regulator in the world will fail if water companies are still owned by those who care nothing for the quality of the lakes, rivers and seas, and who care only about making as much profit as possible in return for very little investment. Is it really acceptable to ask bill payers for a 30% rise when there is no guarantee that the water company will not be siphoning off huge chunks of that money in dividends, pay rises or bonuses? Why is there nothing in the statement that will truly empower the volunteers, citizen scientists and water campaigners I just mentioned? Why are we not giving places on water company boards to the likes of the Eden Rivers Trust, the South Lakes Rivers Trust, Save Windermere, the Clean River Kent Campaign, Surfers Against Sewage and Windrush Against Sewage Pollution, known as WASP? Why is there no mention of monitoring the volume of sewage spills as well as the number of incidences, and no mention of including legally binding pollution reduction targets?
Although the statement is welcome and we rightly celebrate the Liberal Democrat campaign wins that it is full of, our job as a constructive and effective Opposition is to scrutinise the detail and to carry on campaigning to clean up our waterways and our water industry too. That is exactly what we shall do.
Several hon. Members rose—
Order. It is apparent that a very considerable number of Back-Bench Members wish to participate in this statement. There are two further statements to follow before we come to the main business of the day, which is also very important, so I urge colleagues on both sides of the House to ask brief questions and not make statements.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
Residents in Peterborough and across Anglian Water’s catchment area will welcome the statement and the bold action taken. They know all too well that the water system is broken. One of the issues we on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee have looked at is the need for water infrastructure. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the drive and determination he has shown today to fix the water system will also drive forward the Fens reservoir and the infrastructure we need in the east of England? After a generation of delay on reservoirs, we now have the opportunity to succeed. Can he tell us that this will stay on track, and we will get the jobs and the water resources we need in the east?
Yes, we are looking at what recommendations we can bring forward early; others will be part of the consultation.
I think my hon. Friend has already done the job for me.
That concludes the statement. I thank the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State for their presence throughout a lengthy session.