Independent Water Commission

Debate between Steve Reed and Adrian Ramsay

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I pay tribute to the young people of my hon. Friend’s constituency. Young people famously care about the environment, and they are devastated to see the scale of pollution in our waterways that she described. We have taken all these steps and put in place the building blocks for change within a year of winning the general election. The previous Government had 14 years. They could have done exactly the same thing in any one of those 14 years, but, as is shown by the absence of the shadow Secretary of State, they just did not care enough.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

This Government-commissioned review looked at how to tinker with the Conservatives’ failed privatised monopoly system, but the truth is that it is a moribund model that has resulted in billions being paid out to shareholders and billions in debt being loaded up, and in crucial infrastructure being neglected, meaning that sewage is regularly pumped into our rivers and seas. Does the Secretary of State accept that the cost of that failure must be part of the calculation of the cost of bringing water into public hands, where it belongs, and that figures like £100 billion are grossly inflated by those who do not think the water industry should pay for its greed and terrible mismanagement of our water system?

[Steve Reed]

I am afraid that the Green party’s proposals would mean paying £100 billion of taxpayers’ money to the owners of the water companies. That money would have to be taken away from the national health service. It would take years to unpick the current ownership models, during which time pollution in our rivers would get much worse, not better. We know it does not work, and we have only to look north of the border to see it; under the nationalised model in Scotland, pollution is worse, not better. The hon. Member is talking about cutting the national health service, giving £100 billion to the owners of the current water companies and making pollution far worse. That does not sound very green to me.

Independent Water Commission

Debate between Steve Reed and Adrian Ramsay

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend represents an incredibly beautiful part of the country in the Gower, and her constituents and the many people who visit those beauty spots will want to know that their children can enjoy the water without risk of contamination from polluted water. Of course I congratulate Surfers Against Sewage and the many campaigners who have pushed for reform. They will be invited to participate in the work of the commission—they have huge expertise. I hope that, before long, her constituents who are testing the quality of the water will start to see improvements until it is pure and crystal clear, as it should always have been.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

The Secretary of State highlights the scandal of sewage in our seas and rivers. Indeed, raw sewage was dumped into our rivers and seas for 3.6 million hours last year. Since privatisation, £72 billion has been paid to shareholders in dividends, while his Department highlights that it would cost £56 billion to carry out the necessary investment, so privatisation has failed as a model for getting the investments in place. Will he therefore confirm that the commission will look at what ownership model for water will be effective in addressing this scandal, including the option of bringing water back into public hands?

[Steve Reed]

The reason I have ruled out nationalisation is that it would not resolve the problems we face. We saw in the Olympics in France that the River Seine was not able to be used for swimming because of pollution. That is a state-owned water system. We see the problems in Scotland. That is a state-owned water system as well. The problems are those of governance and regulation. Nationalisation would cost towards £100 billion of public money—money that does not exist—and the time it would take to unpick the current models of ownership, during which time investment would be choked off, would see our rivers, lakes and seas filled with even more sewage and pollution, rather than less. I am more interested in the purity of our water than the purity of our ideology. I will do what works best as quickly as possible. The commission will give us guidance on how we should change the system to make sure it works for everybody.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Steve Reed and Adrian Ramsay

Thursday 12th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

T6. Any cuts to the environmental land management scheme would be a blow to farmers and to the Government’s climate and nature recovery missions. The nature-friendly farming budget needs to be not just maintained but increased. Does the Secretary of State agree with the economic assessment made by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the National Trust and the Wildlife Trusts that the environmental land management budget will need to be increased to around £5.9 billion a year to meet the targets?

[Steve Reed]

The Government remain fully committed to the ELM schemes, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will make announcements about the budget at the appropriate time.