Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op) I beg to move, That this
House regrets that 13 years of successive Conservative Governments
have broken the water industry and its regulatory framework; is
deeply concerned about the scale of the sewage crisis and the
devastating impact it is having on the UK’s rivers, lakes and seas;
believes it is indefensible that executives at UK water companies
were paid over £14 million in bonuses between 2020 and 2021 despite
inflicting...Request free trial
(Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House regrets that 13 years of successive Conservative
Governments have broken the water industry and its regulatory
framework; is deeply concerned about the scale of the sewage
crisis and the devastating impact it is having on the UK’s
rivers, lakes and seas; believes it is indefensible that
executives at UK water companies were paid over £14 million in
bonuses between 2020 and 2021 despite inflicting significant
environmental and human damage; condemns the Government for being
too weak to tackle the crisis and hold water company bosses to
account; calls on the Government to empower Ofwat to ban the
payment of bonuses to water company executives whose companies
are discharging significant levels of raw sewage into the UK’s
seas and waterways; and further calls on the Secretary of State
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to make a statement to
this House by 31 January 2024 on the Government’s progress in
implementing this ban.
I will continue, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
Yes, otherwise that would be the shortest speech.
I will not be that kind to you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Our beautiful waterways have been polluted by the highest level
of illegal sewage discharges in our history under this
Conservative Government. Last year, there was at least one spill
every 2.5 minutes—and that is just the spills that we know about,
because not every spill is properly reported. Over a year ago,
Vaughan Lewis, an Environment Agency whistleblower, warned the
Government about serious failures of regulation. He said that
“it was impossible for the Environment Agency to know what’s
going on”
because the Government had
“ceded the control of monitoring to water companies, which ended
up being able to mark their own homework. They take their own
samples and assess whether they are being compliant.”
Now, we have more evidence that that is precisely what has been
going on.
Last night, the BBC’s “Panorama” investigation exposed yet
another scandal—exactly what that whistleblower warned about in
August 2022, which has been ignored by four Conservative
Environment Secretaries since. According to the “Panorama” team,
leaked records show that United Utilities deliberately downgraded
and misreported severe sewage leaks, including discharges into
Lake Windermere, one of the most beautiful places in England. Of
931 reported water company pollution incidents in north-west
England last year, the Environment Agency attended a paltry six.
It is as clear as day that the water companies are covering up
illegal sewage discharges. That is a national scandal.
(Feltham and Heston)
(Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Does he agree that the
failure of the Conservatives to prevent illegal sewage leaks has
led to a drastic increase in illegal discharges, which has
affected our communities, damaged nature, damaged tourism, and
put the health of kids and adults at risk?
As always, my hon. Friend makes an important point very
eloquently. I am sure that all our constituents up and down the
country are appalled by what they have seen not just on
“Panorama” last night, but when they have visited our beautiful
waterways up and down the country. Raw human excrement polluting
our waterways is not just disgusting; it destroys natural
habitats, kills wildlife and damages tourism. Perhaps most
appallingly of all, it makes people sick—children most of all—if
they swallow parasitic bacteria and chemicals that should be
nowhere near our rivers, lakes and seas.
How on earth did we get here? The Conservative Government cut the
Environment Agency’s resources in half. That led to a dramatic
reduction in monitoring, enforcement and prosecutions, leaving
illegal sewage spills to double between 2016 and 2021.
(Wakefield)
(Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. Like me, he will
have noted that the Minister is in her place. She was strangely
missing yesterday for the Lib Dem amendment on compensation for
those harmed by the criminal handling of sewage, though she was
present in the Division Lobby just 15 minutes later. Does my hon.
Friend think that she was allowed to abstain, or should she be
sacked?
It is hard to know whether discipline has broken down in the
Conservative party; its Members seem able to rebel with impunity.
When the Minister speaks, I am sure she will enlighten the House
about what happened.
Instead of acting on the warnings, the Government have turned a
blind eye to what has been going on. Thanks to this Government’s
wilful negligence, we see record levels of toxic sewage swilling
through our rivers and lakes, pouring into our seas and lapping
on to our beaches.
(South Holland and The Deepings)
(Con)
I know that the hon. Gentleman would not want to make a partisan
speech; he would want to make a balanced appraisal of the
challenges, which we all regard with the seriousness that he has
described. He mentioned beaches. Will he acknowledge that the
proportion of bathing waters regarded as good or excellent has
increased dramatically—from 76% to 93%, to be precise—since 2010,
when his party was last in power?
Heaven forfend that anyone would make a partisan speech in this
place. I do not believe that the quality of water on our beaches
is acceptable. Many campaign groups, such as Surfers Against
Sewage, regularly point out the very low, even toxic, quality of
the water that their families and they wish to enjoy. Many
constituents of Members on both sides of the House will share
those concerns. I hope that this debate is a time for us to come
together to collectively identify the problems and move forward
with proposals to tackle them. The right hon. Member, just like
me and Members from all parts of the House, will share the
concern that our once pristine waterways have been polluted by
stinking, toxic filth. However, I hold the sewage party opposite
responsible. The Prime Minister would not put up with raw sewage
in his private swimming pool, so why is he happy to treat the
British countryside as an open sewer?
(Meon Valley) (Con)
Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that when Labour was last in
power, it produced a draft Flood and Water Management Bill in
2009 that aimed to reduce red tape and other burdens on water and
sewerage companies. The uproar at the time forced the Labour
Government to change their mind. This Government have tightened
regulations and made water companies start paying for the
pollution.
The hon. Member can be as much as of an apologist as she likes
for the filthy, toxic sewage swilling through our rivers, but her
constituents will hear what she says, contrast it with what they
see and draw their own conclusions when the election comes, I am
sure.
Whistleblowers and leaked documents give us a very clear
explanation of why the water companies are behaving in the way
they are. If they downgrade and cover up sewage spills, they are
rewarded with permission to increase their customers’ bills,
which boosts their profits. Fewer reported spills—not actual, but
reported—and more profits mean bigger bonuses for the water
bosses. Profiteering from covering up lawbreaking is
corruption—corruption to which this Conservative Government have
turned a blind eye.
Labour will crack down on rogue water companies and strengthen
regulation to clean up our waterways. We will place the water
companies under special measures. As a first step, Labour will
ban self-monitoring by water companies. Instead, we will require
water companies to install remote monitors on every outlet, with
the result overseen by regulators. That way, we will know exactly
what is being discharged into our waterways. Any illegal spill
will be met with an immediate and severe fine—no more delays, no
more appeals, and no more lenient fines that are cheaper than
investing to upgrade crumbling infrastructure. Rogue water bosses
who oversee repeated, severe and illegal sewage discharges will
face personal criminal liability. And we will stop the
Conservatives’ disgraceful collusion in this national scandal by
reinstating the principle that the polluter pays.
(Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I welcome those strong interventions and regulations. One of the
companies the shadow Minister is referring to is United
Utilities, which made 27 sewage dumps—nearly 3,000 hours of
sewage—in my constituency last year. Those are only the 27 that
we know about. We need strong intervention and we need to get the
referee on the pitch. Ironically, United Utilities is putting
bills up by £110, so I welcome those measures.
My hon. Friend rightly expresses the anger his constituents feel.
Their bills are going up to pay bonuses to water bosses who have
allowed this situation to continue to deteriorate. As I said
earlier, there is a proposal in the motion, which I hope Members
of all parties might consider supporting, to deal with the
situation and demonstrate to the chiefs of those organisations
which are responsible for the sewage outpours that Parliament and
the people of this country will not continue to accept what they
are doing.
(Twickenham) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman outlines very effectively all the failings of
the water companies and of this Conservative Government to take
action. Thames Water has been dumping billions of litres of raw
sewage in the River Thames and there are hundreds of millions of
litres of water leaks every single day. That has undermined trust
in water companies among bill payers and our constituents. Does
he agree with me that, when they have extremely controversial
proposals in my constituency and in the constituency of my hon.
Friend the Member for Richmond Park () to take water out of the
river and replace it with treated sewage, there is a huge amount
of distrust? Given the construction impacts they will cause in
the area and the potential environmental impact on the river, how
can people trust them when they give assurances about the safety
of such schemes?
The hon. Lady makes a very important point very eloquently. She
is a tireless campaigner on these issues and I am sure that many
people who care about the state of our rivers will be grateful to
her for leading on that work.
I am sure all Members will be concerned about this point as well.
Despite some of the highest levels of illegal sewage discharges
in history, water bosses awarded themselves nearly £14 million in
bonuses between 2021-22. At the same time, they were planning to
increase average household bills by £156. All that was signed off
by a broken regulator and Conservative Ministers. That is an
absolute abuse of consumers and Labour will stop it. Labour will
give the water regulator the power to ban bonuses for water
bosses until they have cleaned up their toxic filth.
The Conservative dogma that regulation is anti-business is
economically illiterate. Fair regulation applied across a sector
is pro-business and pro-growth, as well as being pro-nature in
this instance. Businesses want certainty and predictability. If
they are left to compete against others who undercut regulation
and get away with it, we end up with a race to the bottom. Good
businesses and investors need and deserve a level playing field,
but this Conservative Government have distorted that. A regulator
that is too weak to regulate leads to weak self-monitoring,
cover-ups, financial corruption, and our waterways awash with
stinking sewage.
(Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
I have been here for quite a long time, and the situation has
been the same for the 23 years for which I have been a Member. I
accept that things have got worse. What I suspect we need to do
is take the main board of each water company and hold them
accountable. South West Water, for instance, which serves Devon
and Cornwall and the edge of the Minister’s constituency of
Taunton Deane, covers up by using a sub-board which runs the
company. It is the main board with which we should deal, and the
same goes for Wessex Water and every other company that we need
to go after. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that action must be
taken, although the situation including bonuses has been the same
for the past 23 years.
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s recognition that the
situation is indeed getting worse. That should stimulate all of
us to find ways of taking action to protect water quality for all
our constituents, who really do deserve better.
I was talking about uncertainty in the regulatory field. The
current level of uncertainty does not attract much-needed
investment in our water industry; on the contrary, it deters
it.
(Oldham West and Royton)
(Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the impact he is making on an
important issue that affects almost every community in the
country. I am glad that he has taken such a robust line on the
regulator, because it is the elephant in the room. We have
focused our fire on the Government because they have failed and
on the water companies because they have taken money and failed,
but the regulators have failed as well, because it was on their
watch that this has been allowed to happen. In the midst of all
that, it cannot be right for consumers to end up paying twice,
first for the dividends that have already gone out of the door
and then for putting the system right.
I am grateful for the work that my hon. Friend has led in
exposing some of the same problems as my predecessor in this
post. He clearly knows an awful lot about these issues, and he
makes his point very well.
Let me move on to the broader issue of nature. The destruction of
nature that this Government have encouraged is unacceptable. As a
party, they increasingly position themselves against nature. On
their watch, we now have one of the most nature-depleted
countries in the world, yet they have rowed back on their net
zero commitments. They have broken their promise to fund farmers
fairly to maintain environmental schemes on their land; they have
tried to weaken environmental standards relating to nutrient
neutrality to allow building alongside estuaries where the
increased pollution would tip habitats beyond the point of
recovery while refusing to build where the environmental impact
could more easily be mitigated; and now they are turning a blind
eye while our rivers are turned into sewers.
Economic growth does not have to stand in opposition to
protecting and restoring nature. The two must go hand in hand.
Labour’s mission to make this country a clean energy superpower
will create thousands of good, well-paid, secure jobs, and part
of it is a national mission to restore nature, including our
polluted waterways. It seems that the longer the Tories are in
power, the more nature suffers. They have little concept of the
pride that the British people take in our countryside, of its
importance to our sense of who we are as a nation and to our
sense of belonging.
(Bermondsey and Old Southwark)
(Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Were the British
people not told by Minister after Minister in this Government
that environmental standards would be enhanced and improved as a
result of Brexit, and have they not been betrayed again by this
shabby Administration?
My hon. Friend makes an accurate observation. People were
promised one thing but the Government then tried to do the
opposite.
I share the hon. Gentleman’s passion for wildlife. We need a
diverse countryside of the kind that he describes and I make the
case, as he does, for hedgerows, trees and so on. Among the
things that blight the countryside, however, are onshore wind
turbines, which kill bats and birds and which are anchored by
hundreds of thousands of tonnes of concrete, and widespread
onshore solar, which eats up agricultural land and turns the
countryside into an industrial place. Would he oppose those
things?
The right hon. Gentleman’s intervention started off well but it
tailed off towards the end. If we can shift to a reliance on
clean energy rather than on fossil fuels, we will support,
enhance, protect and conserve nature, which is what we should all
be seeking to do.
There can be no more graphic a metaphor for 14 years of
Conservative failure than the human excrement now swilling
through our waterways—the visible desecration of our countryside
and the toxic legacy of Tory rule. It has often been the case in
history that Labour has had to clean up the Tories’ mess, but
rarely quite so literally. It is time to turn the page on 14
years of decline and to embrace a decade of national renewal with
nature at its heart. That is why Labour has a plan to clean up
our waterways by ending self-monitoring; introducing severe and
automatic fines for illegal sewage dumping; criminal liability
for water bosses who repeatedly and severely break the law; and
no more bonuses for water bosses who profit from pollution.
Conservative Ministers have sewage on their hands. This
debate—and the vote that I hope follows—is a chance for them to
show whose side they are on: the water companies or clean water.
If they refuse, the next Labour Government will clean up their
mess and restore pride in our rivers, our lakes and our seas.
4.57pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs ()
I would like to thank the hon. Member for Croydon North () for raising this important
issue. As I have said constantly, all sewage in our waterways is
completely and utterly unacceptable. I am pleased to have this
opportunity to put on record the huge strides that we have made
to deliver clean water for customers and the environment. We are
the party for nature. We are the party that brought forward the
Environment Act 2021, although many of the measures in it were
not supported by Opposition Members. It is a globally leading
piece of legislation. If the hon. Gentleman went out on to the
global stage, he would realise that we are revered for it, and we
now have the whole framework in place to deliver what it states.
There are many measures in it to tackle water.
I am genuinely proud to have instigated and driven through our
plan for water, which was supported by hundreds of people. It had
a huge amount of expertise put into it to deliver it, and we are
delivering it. It sets out a genuinely holistic plan to deliver
more investment, stronger regulation and tougher enforcement, and
make no mistake, it is cross-party. I would like to make the hon.
Gentleman an offer. Would he like me to give him a copy, because
I am not sure that he has actually looked at it? I would be happy
to do that after the debate.
(Hereford and South
Herefordshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentions the plan for water, but she will be aware
that the previous Secretary of State came to Herefordshire, where
she attended a roundtable in Hereford and promised that a plan
for the River Wye would be brought to us by 15 September, three
months after that meeting. We have yet to see it. I have to say,
on behalf of the people of my county, that we are starting to run
out of patience. When can we expect this plan to come
through?
I am well aware that the previous Secretary of State came to the
River Wye, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and
South Herefordshire () will know that I came to the
River Wye some time before her visit—he could not make my
visit—so I have some knowledge of the area, and I understand his
concerns. The action plan is under way. As my right hon. Friend
knows, we have had a few changes but the new water Minister, my
hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (), is here, and the action
plan is very much on the cards. I thank the people who did all
that work on the Wye, because it is not just about water and
sewage; it is a very complicated issue that also brings in
farming and farmers along the river, as my right hon. Friend is
well aware from his involvement.
Whatever the Labour party might say, many of the problems that
were vociferously raised by the shadow Minister actually started
on Labour’s watch. We are where we are because of Labour’s
failure to do anything about it. There was virtually no
monitoring. In fact, it was Labour that allowed the water
companies’ self-monitoring that the shadow Minister criticises.
It was his party that started the self-monitoring.
To set the record straight, I remind the shadow Minister that the
Labour Government were given legal notice by the EU on sewage
discharges from overflows in Whitburn. Labour certainly did not
have a glowing record when it had its opportunity.
A whistleblower made serious allegations against United Utilities
on “Panorama”, and the Minister mentioned monitoring. It was
clearly gaming the system. What robust intervention has she so
far made with United Utilities, which operates in my constituency
and beyond?
The hon. Gentleman is right to be concerned. As I go through my
speech, he will hear all the measures that we have put in place
for all the water companies, not just United Utilities.
As I said at the beginning, I want to be clear that the current
volume of sewage discharged by water companies is utterly
unacceptable. They must act urgently to improve their performance
so that they can meet both Government and public expectations,
but it is because of the monitoring that this Government required
the water companies to put in place that we now know what is
happening and the scale of the challenge that we face.
We have upped the pressure on the water companies so that, by the
end of this year, 100% of all storm sewage overflows will be
monitored. We are taking the most ambitious action in water
company history to tackle sewage pollution, including using new
powers and new responsibilities in the landmark Environment Act
2021, which I was proud to take through Parliament—many of the
shadow Ministers obviously engaged with the Act’s passage—and
there is also the additional £60 billion storm sewage overflow
discharge reduction plan.
Despite saying that they care about our precious water, many
Opposition Members did not vote for all these measures so that
the people of this country—including you and me, Mr Deputy
Speaker—can have the wonderful water and the beautiful
environment that we deserve. It is through our measures that we
are now holding water companies to account, in a way that has
never been seen before, with more investment, stronger regulation
and tougher enforcement. We will continue to go further in
holding the industry accountable for its actions.
(Bristol East) (Lab)
The Minister knows perfectly well that we opposed some of these
measures during the passage of the Environment Bill because we
did not think it was strong enough. The Bill was very weak in
places, hence our opposition. Given that the Minister’s
constituents are covered by Wessex Water, does she think it is
right that the company is asking its customers to pay an extra
£150 a year towards funding work on infrastructure, when the
chief executive took home pay of £982,000 in 2021-22? I do not
think my constituents, who are also customers of Wessex Water,
should have to pay that extra money. Does she?
That is an important point, and it is why we have made so many
changes to the regulator—I will go into detail in a minute. It is
quite clear that customers will not be paying for water company
bonuses. Ofwat and its board now have very strong powers to
oversee all of this.
I am going to go through the points one by one. I will start with
more investment. We are ensuring that our regulators have the
investment and the powers they need, and we are ensuring that the
water companies deliver the infrastructure improvements that we
urgently require. Since privatisation we have unlocked over £215
billion of investment in England, with £7.1 billion in
environmental improvements by water companies over the period
2020 to 2025. It includes £3.1 billion in storm overflow
improvements; and £1.9 billion of that is for the incredible
Thames tideway tunnel, which is on track to transform tackling
sewage pollution for the people of London. I am sure that our
Liberal Democrats present will welcome that, because it is a
game-changing project.
In addition, over 800 storm overflow improvements countrywide
have been set in motion. They are under way and will be completed
by 2025. It is because of all our monitoring that we were able to
pinpoint where all this work needs to take place.
Could the Minister perhaps say a bit more about consumer
protection? We all want this problem to be dealt with, and she is
laying out some of the actions that she is saying the Government
will take forward, but with my constituents having seen a £175
increase and expecting that to continue, there is a real question
about consumer fairness and what customers are actually paying
for. It would be helpful to know what discussions she has had
with water bosses about their increased bills and what they are
going towards.
That is a very sensible and important point. That is why the
price review process is under way, and all the water company
plans are being forensically analysed, with requirements that we
have put on them to deliver all this infrastructure, but also
always to be mindful of the costs to the bill payer. We have to
get investors in to invest in this, but we also have to be
mindful of what goes on the bill, which is essential, and that is
what Ofwat will be considering. Members will be hearing a lot
more about those price plans shortly. There is also a system for
vulnerable customers. We have upped the number of customers that
water companies have to help if they are struggling with their
bills, so there is a clear plan for that.
Our storm overflows discharge reduction plan goes even further.
It requires water companies to deliver the largest infrastructure
programme in water company history, amounting to £60 billion of
investment over 25 years.
Will the right hon. Lady give way?
I will carry on for a minute, because I know that you, Mr Deputy
Speaker, will be urging me to speed up. For information, I wanted
to say that in a recent High Court judgment it was found that our
storm sewage overflows discharge reduction plan actually goes
over and above the requirements of existing regulation. It would
be nice if the Opposition recognised that, because it was
specifically highlighted.
Will the right hon. Lady give way on that point?
I am going to carry on for a bit.
Ensuring that our regulators are fit for purpose, to enforce our
new regime, is absolutely crucial. With that in mind, we have
increased the Environment Agency’s overall grant-in-aid funding
by over 40% and capital funding by 80% since 2010. We have also
provided an extra £2.2 million per year specifically for water
company enforcement activity. In May we did even more: we
provided £11.3 million of funding increase to Ofwat to treble its
enforcement activity, because both EA and Ofwat have enforcement
powers. In June, in recognition of the urgency of action, Ofwat
approved a further £2.2 billion of accelerated infrastructure,
which included £1.7 billion of investment, in reducing sewage
discharges, including a major project to reduce sewage discharges
in Lake Windermere.
The shadow Minister mentioned automatic fines. That idea would
backfire, because if the regulators found evidence of criminal
misdemeanours, it would prevent them from going through the
courts and we would effectively end up with even higher fines. So
the system of automatic fines would not work, but we have just
brought in our unlimited penalties for the environment, so the
regulators could use that option, but we still need the option
for them to go to the courts if necessary.
(Belfast South) (SDLP)
On that point, will the Minister give way?
I will talk about stronger regulation now. We are bringing in
even tougher regulations than ever before to hold water companies
to account. In the summer, Ofwat confirmed new plans to ensure
that customers no longer fund executive bonus payments where
companies have not met Ofwat’s expectation on environmental
performance. Using new powers granted to Ofwat by this Government
in the landmark Environment Act 2021, Ofwat announced in March
that it will take enforcement action against water companies that
do not link dividend payments to environmental performance. As I
said, we have also legislated to bring in unlimited penalties on
water companies that breach their environmental permits. The
changes will provide the Environment Agency with the tools it
needs to hold water companies to account.
The Minister may be aware of the evolving environmental
catastrophe in Lough Neagh, which is the largest lake in these
islands and a key biodiversity asset for Northern Ireland. It is
dying in front of our eyes because of blue-green algal bloom
related to agricultural run-off and sewage discharge from
Northern Ireland Water, which is entirely Government owned. In
that context, does she agree with me that Northern Ireland
desperately needs an independent environment agency, to try to
reconcile the competing priorities of the Department of
Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs—DEFRA’s sister
Department in Northern Ireland—which is responsible for both
swelling agricultural assets and protecting the environment?
Clearly, in this context the environment is being failed.
I have heard about this incident. I refer DAERA to our plans on
water to see how we are tackling such issues. Farming is a big
cause of some of the pollution. We have launched our slurry
infrastructure grant and a range of measures to work with farmers
to cut down that pollution, so lessons could be shared.
On that point, will the Minister give way?
I just wanted to say that we want to continue to drive down
nutrient pollution from the water sector, which is why we have
set a legally binding target to reduce phosphorus loads from
wastewater treatment—
On that point, will the Minister give way?
The hon. Gentleman might be interested in this. We have set
targets to reduce phosphorus loads from wastewater treatment
works by 80% by 2038, relative to a 2020 baseline. In areas where
protected habitat sites are particularly impacted by nutrient
pollution, which I am sure interests the hon. Gentleman, we are
going even further. In the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act
2023, we placed a new requirement on water companies to upgrade
wastewater treatment works in designated areas to the highest
technically achievable standards by April 2030.
On that point, will the Minister give way?
The hon. Gentleman is so unrelenting that I will give way.
It seems apt that this is debate No. 2 this afternoon. If the
Minister has so much faith in the measures she is talking about,
why was she absent last night from the vote on new clause 10 in
the Victims and Prisoners Bill on the sewage illness victim
compensation scheme, despite voting just 15 minutes later?
We have such a strong plan and it will be fully operational. I
completely support the Government with the line they took last
night. I am lined up with what we were dealing with last night
and I support the Government position. I was dealing with some
particularly urgent business last night. In my view, the new
clause was superfluous because we already have powers, including
those on criminal conduct, for people to act if they have been
affected by pollution. They can already seek compensation when
there is evidence of personal injury, loss or damage.
To get back to my speech, I am now on the bit about tougher
enforcement. We recognise concerns about enforcement. We are
working closely with Ofwat and the new leadership at the
Environment Agency to ensure that regulators are holding the
water industry to the highest possible standards. That includes
bringing fines against water companies that do not comply with
their permits and publishing the environmental performance
assessment of water companies in England, giving a clear picture
of company performance. Where that is insufficient, action will
be and is being taken.
I had been meeting all the lagging water companies highlighted
through that assessment to challenge them on their performance,
and I am pleased that the new water Minister, my hon. Friend the
Member for Keighley, is continuing to do that. I believe he met
Yorkshire Water yesterday and South East Water last night, so we
are continuing our unstinting drive with the water companies.
The regulator has launched the largest criminal and civil
investigations in water company history into sewage discharges at
more than 2,200 treatment works, following new data that has come
to light as a result of increased monitoring at waste water
treatment works. We have taken robust enforcement action against
illegal breaches of storm overflow permits. Since 2015, the
Environment Agency has concluded 59 prosecutions against water
and sewage companies, securing fines of more than £150
million.
I cannot miss the opportunity to say that in Labour-run Wales
sewage discharges are double what they are in England, so it is
hard to take any lessons from the Opposition. They have the
opportunity to step in and sort that out but they have not taken
it.
The Government have launched the revolutionary storm overflows
reduction plan, which prioritises action on the overflows that
cause the most harm, to make the biggest difference as quickly as
possible. Our strict targets will see the toughest ever crackdown
on sewage spills and, as I have already stated, will require
water companies to deliver that huge infrastructure programme
worth £60 billion. Our plan will protect biodiversity, the
ecology of our rivers and seas, and the public health of water
users for generations to come.
Will the Minister give way?
No, because I am moving on to bonuses and dividends.
The Government have taken unprecedented measures to bring into
balance the remuneration of water company executives. This
summer, Ofwat confirmed new plans to ensure that customers no
longer fund executive bonus payments if companies have not met
Ofwat’s expectations on environmental performance. Ofwat will
regularly review executive bonus payments and, when companies do
not meet expectations, step in to ensure that customers do not
pick up the bill. That answers the point made earlier by the hon.
Member for Bristol East (). There is no need for the
Labour party’s proposals, because we are already doing really
strong work on bonuses and dividends.
I want to be really clear that bill payers come first. For the
2022-23 period, no water and sewage company in England and Wales
is paying a chief executive officer bonus out of customer money,
while half of CEOs are taking no bonus whatsoever. This is the
first time that has ever happened in the history of the water
industry, reflecting the industry’s recognition that the public
expect better.
In March 2023, Ofwat announced new measures on dividends that
will enable it to take enforcement action against companies that
do not link dividend payments to performance. I remind the House
that in each year since privatisation, investment has actually
been much greater than the dividends paid out.
I am going to conclude—
Will the Minister give way?
I have given way enough; we want to get on and hear other
speakers.
This Government will leave no stone unturned in tackling all
aspects of water pollution and poor water company performance.
That is why we have introduced the most comprehensive costed plan
for water that delivers more investment, stronger regulation and
tougher enforcement. By contrast—
rose—
The hon. Gentleman has had his chance.
By contrast, the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrat
party do not have credible plans to reduce discharges—we cannot
just switch off storm overflows overnight, as some suggest—and
their mixed bag of proposals would actually add hundreds pounds
to customers’ bills. That addresses the point made by the hon.
Member for Feltham and Heston (). Labour’s proposals would
involve the digging up of enough pipes to go two and a half times
around the globe. [Interruption.] That is actually correct.
As I said, I am really happy to share our plan for water with the
shadow Secretary of State so that the Opposition can see exactly
what is in place—our comprehensive, costed plan—and see that we
are delivering now.
5.19pm
(Easington) (Lab)
I am really pleased to speak in a very important debate for me
and my constituents. The east Durham coastline is a huge asset to
the region and to the country. From Seaham to Blackhall, I
represent the most stunning coastline in Great Britain. We have
amazing beaches, with an abundance of sea glass, sand dunes and
limestone caves. Our seas are home to a formidable group of open
water swimmers, braving the North sea at all times of the year.
Our marina at Seaham provides access to various water sports,
including canoeing, paddleboarding and windsurfing. Crimdon Dene
visitor hub and café is encouraging more people to visit and
enjoy our east Durham coastline.
On the sea front and the clifftops of east Durham, there is also
an array of art, iconic locations and national heritage. Seaham
has a newly decommissioned field gun, a further attraction, and
is home to Tommy, a Ray Lonsdale world war one sculpture, an
artwork that was voted the Sky Arts No. 1 public artwork and
attracts a large number of people to our coastline. From
Easington, the site of the former colliery, the views stretch
from County Durham to North Yorkshire.
A nature reserve sits at the centre of the once thriving
industrial heart of the community, and it is also the site of a
memorial garden that honours the 83 miners and rescuers who lost
their lives in the terrible disaster at Easington colliery in
1951. Blackhall is another site of special scientific interest.
The wildflowers and grass of the clifftops offer peaceful views,
with easy access to Blackhall’s beach caves. The coastline is
also home to a unique music and film heritage. My constituency
was the backdrop to the iconic “Who’s Next” album cover and the
location for a number of films, including “Get Carter”, “Billy
Elliot” and, most recently, “The Old Oak”.
That is why I am passionate about protecting our precious
coastline. Industrial spoil from coal mining once blighted it and
the beaches were blackened with coal dust and abandoned colliery
infrastructure, but we reclaimed the coastline for nature. The
“Turning The Tide” project removed industrial pollution from the
east Durham coastline, and the improvement has made the
environment more enjoyable for everyone.
Coal spoil was once a visible scar on the environment, but water
pollution represents a more insidious and more discreet risk to
our health, welfare and environment. I was interested by the
Minister’s comments about personal injury, because water
pollution hit the headlines recently when we had the ironman
world triathlon championship series at Sunderland. There are
three elements to the event, cycling, running and swimming, and
after the swimming element, 88 of the athletes fell ill from
swimming in waters contaminated with E. coli. I do not know what
redress there was for personal injury, but we know the source of
the problem.
Northumbrian Water, once a publicly owned authority but now under
Chinese ownership, pollutes our seas whenever it rains. I looked
yesterday at the Safer Seas & Rivers Service app, which I
recommend to all hon. Members; we have had some terrible weather
in the north-east, and as the snow thawed Northumbrian Water was
polluting our seas at three sewage overflows in my constituency.
That is just one of 164 incidents of Northumbrian Water dumping
raw sewage in my constituency.
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about degradation. The
Minister seemed to suggest that her Government were revered for
their work on this issue. Do his constituents share my
constituents’ view that, on the contrary, this is a Government of
the effluent for the effluent?
What an excellent intervention, if I may say so. The suggestion
that things are getting better is not the experience of my
constituents—and as for the Minister’s commitment to addressing
the issues, my feeling is that she is simply going through the
motions.
We need a solution. I am an old-school socialist. Clean water,
rivers and seas are very important, and private water companies
have failed in their duty of care. Those companies enjoy a
privileged position: no competition, a weak regulator and a
compliant Government. I want to end those private monopolies—we
should control and run water in the national interest—but I am a
realist: the Tories and my own party do not have the appetite for
nationalisation, so I will propose an alternative.
Private water companies have extracted huge dividends since
privatisation, which they have secured through higher bills and a
failure to invest, and by ramping up debt. In December 2022, The
Guardian reported that water companies have paid £69.5 billion in
dividends. Over the same period, they have racked up £54 billion
in debts. Companies promise to invest in infrastructure, but only
by passing on higher costs to consumers. Why do we accept water
companies ripping us off, polluting our waters and telling us to
pay to clean up their mess? The Government must take control of
the situation.
I support the following: the Government must block all future
dividend payments until water companies meet set standards
including clean water targets, debt targets, investment targets
and low consumer bills; we need a zero dumping policy—sewage
overflows must be an exception, not the normal practice; we need
a sustainable water industry, which means an end to the practice
of borrowing in order to pay dividends; and new and modern
infrastructure must be prioritised before dividends.
The promise of privatisation is always better service and lower
costs, but we have seen worse service and higher bills every
time. Private companies are driven by profits. The proposals that
I have set out are a means of delivering the public interest.
Dividends and profits should be awarded only when private
companies deliver the promised services. If we cannot spend in
the next Parliament, we need to regulate and reform. If
privatised water is to remain, we must ensure that it works and
benefits the people we all represent.
5.26pm
(St Austell and Newquay)
(Con)
It is a real pleasure for me to take part in this debate. I was
born and raised in the heart of Cornwall, have lived there my
whole life, and have always enjoyed the sea. Members who follow
me on any my private social media platforms will know that I am
found in, on or beside the sea at just about every possible
opportunity. Therefore, I have taken a very keen interest in the
whole issue of water quality, particularly bathing water and
sewage discharge, throughout my life, long before I was first
elected to this House.
We have to start by saying that this is not a new issue. Let us
remember that Surfers Against Sewage was started in 1990
specifically to raise awareness about it and deal with it. At
that time, less than 25% of UK bathing waters were at a minimum
acceptable standard for bathing, whereas there is now only one
beach in my constituency that does not meet that standard. I am
sorry, but pretending that things are worse than they have ever
been is absolute nonsense. We have seen incredible progress on
this issue over many years.
I remember very clearly that the Labour Government did absolutely
nothing in 13 years to address the issue—zero. When we came into
office in 2015, we were the first ever Government to take this
matter seriously and start to address it.
(Broadland) (Con)
What my hon. Friend has just said is not actually accurate.
Labour did not just do nothing; in 2006, it cut a deal with the
water companies to agree self-assessment on their environmental
performance. Does he agree that that is worse than nothing?
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Labour actually made the
situation worse—so much so that in 2009, the Labour Government
was taken to court by the EU for failing to deal with the
issue—so I am sorry, but we will take no lectures whatsoever from
the Opposition Front Benchers about dealing with it. We are the
first Government who have ever taken this matter seriously and
taken action to start addressing it. We do not even have to think
back in history, because we have a living example right before us
today: in the one part of the UK where the Labour party is in
government, the situation is far worse than in England. Wales is
responsible for 25% of sewage discharges for the whole of England
and Wales, yet it has only 5% of the population, so again, we
will take no lectures from the Opposition.
It was this Government who first introduced substantial
monitoring of storm overflows. When Labour left office, 7% of
storm overflows were monitored; that figure is now 91%, and it
will reach 100% in the next few weeks. I place on record my
thanks—and, I believe, our thanks—to one of my Cornish
colleagues, my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and
Redruth (), who started the process of
dealing with this issue when he came into DEFRA. I do not believe
we would be in the position we are in today with monitoring, or
with any of the other measures, if he had not initiated that work
when he first became a DEFRA Minister.
The Liberal Democrats often claim that they are very interested
in sewage, yet they fail to mention that the water Minister
between 2013 and 2015 was the former Member for North Cornwall, a
Liberal Democrat. What did he do to improve the situation?
Nothing.
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It was not until 2015
that the Government started to take this issue seriously and take
action; it did not even happen under the coalition Government.
Therefore, all the crowing from the Liberal Democrats that they
regard this as a really important issue is nonsense, because when
they were in government, they initiated nothing to address
it.
It is clear that there is now far greater public awareness and
concern about this issue, and it is much higher up the political
agenda than ever before, and rightly so. Some of us, particularly
in Cornwall, have been pushing for that to be the case for a very
long time, so I welcome the fact that sewage discharges are now a
much bigger priority and there is much greater public awareness
of them. However, again, let us be frank: people are only aware
of what is going on because of the increased monitoring that we
have introduced. For 13 years under Labour, all of this sewage
was being discharged into the sea, but no one knew about it
because there was no monitoring. It is only because of the
increase in monitoring over the past few years that we know what
is going on.
The first step towards dealing with an issue is to know what is
happening. The first step that the Government took was to
introduce monitoring, and we now have the data that enables us to
hold the water companies to account. Before we had that
monitoring and that data, we could not hold them to account
because we did not know what was going on; now, we are holding
them to account. Since 2015, there have been 58 prosecutions of
water companies for failing to fulfil their obligations, and £141
million has been secured in fines. That money is being invested
in environmental improvements and in reducing pollution. We must
always remember that under this Government, it is the water
companies that get taken to court; under Labour, it is the
Government who get taken to court.
We now have a plan to reduce storm overflows, which I had the
great privilege of launching during my brief time as water
Minister. I acknowledge that my hon. Friend the Member for
Taunton Deane () put in most of the legwork to
produce that plan; I just had the glory moment of crossing the
t’s, dotting the i’s and launching it. We now have a plan to
invest £56 billion in upgrading the infrastructure to reduce
sewage discharges, but we have to be honest with the British
public. We hear comments from Opposition Members like, “Let’s
stop sewage immediately; we could do it straightaway,” but that
is nonsense. We are talking about Victorian infrastructure that
has been in place for over 100 years: it is going to take an
awful lot of money and an awful lot of time to upgrade and
improve that infrastructure to address this issue. However, we
now have a plan to make sure that it will happen, and we can hold
the water companies to account to ensure that they make that
investment and deliver on that plan.
There is also a myth—I am sure Labour Members will mention it
today—that somehow Conservative Members voted to allow water
companies to continue to discharge sewage. It is a lie: it is not
the truth. Actually, we were the ones who brought forward the
Environment Act 2021, which contains all the measures that enable
us to hold the water companies to account. The Opposition did not
support the Act so, if anything, they were the ones who tried to
stop us taking action against the water companies, and we were
the ones who voted for the Act and all the measures it contains.
We need to be absolutely clear that we are the ones taking action
and we are the ones taking this matter seriously.
The motion mentions directors’ bonuses. It is absolutely right
that directors of water companies who fail to keep their
obligations when it comes to sewage discharge and other forms of
pollution should not be rewarded because of that, but we are
already doing it. Ofwat has confirmed that it has the power to
review both dividend payments and bonuses where water companies
fail to keep to their environmental obligations. I know it is
difficult for Labour Members, because they probably sit there
looking at all the things we are doing and thinking, “Why on
earth didn’t we do this when we were in government for 13 years?”
I know it must be difficult for them, because they did absolutely
nothing. They made things worse, not better, and it is this
Government who are delivering on this issue.
I take this issue seriously. I have taken this issue seriously
for many years—long before I came to this House—and it is right
that the public are now much more aware of how important it is,
but let us get real: we are dealing with it. We are taking the
necessary steps to reduce the amount of sewage that will be
discharged, and I welcome that. I believe that this Government
will continue to deliver on our plan, and we will see things
continue to improve in the years ahead.
5.36pm
(Hammersmith) (Lab)
I will try to do better than that.
I want to talk for a few minutes about Thames Water, which has
the job of supplying water and sewerage services to about 17
million people in London and the south-east. I will speak, first,
about my constituents’ experience of Thames and, secondly, about
the company itself and the people who run it.
Last night, as is often the case, my constituents were on social
media talking about Thames, because a large number of people in
West Kensington had been cut off without water for a day or so.
This was the exchange:
“How long until we have water as it has been a day without
supplies for many and people need drinking water”?
The answer from Thames was:
“Sorry for that. I have checked with my system there no timeframe
mentioned in this issue. This is an unplanned event our team has
hardly working this issue you are water is back to normal.”
The exchange went on:
“So will they give us bottles of drinking water please”?
The answer from Thames was:
“I have checked with my system right now there is no bottle water
available. Your water is back to soon normal our team has working
hardly this issue.”
That is typical, I am afraid, of its communications, and of the
contempt, frankly, with which Thames treats its customers.
About a month ago, the whole of Shepherd’s Bush—that is tens of
thousands of people in East Acton—did not have water for three
days. There was no communication from Thames whatsoever. I was on
the phone to it the whole weekend. I was getting reports, I
visited where the leaks and the breaks were, and I put it on
social media. I believe that is Thames’s job, but it does not do
that. It simply does not do it, for whatever reason—whether it is
unable to or it just does not care, I do not know. These massive
breaks in pipes happen all the time. I think I know why they
happen: it is because Thames does not maintain its pipes, and the
pressure means that they burst. We often get a number of bursts
at one time, and then it can spend up to a month or more
repairing them, which involves digging up the road and shutting
off roads. In that way, it is a law unto itself.
That is equally the case with sewer flooding. Two and a half
years ago, there was heavy rain in London, and hundreds of my
constituents’ homes, basements and ground floors were flooded
with raw sewage. For some of those properties, it was the third
or fourth time it had happened. When it happened back in the
2000s, there was the Counters Creek flood alleviation scheme. It
cost several hundred million pounds and was going to relieve
sewer flooding in west London. I spent many hours in many
meetings talking to Thames Water and constituents about how it
was going to relieve the problem. Frankly, I cannot think of a
much worse problem someone could have than to live with the risk
of their house being flooded with raw sewage, whether it comes
through the front door, up through the toilet, or whatever.
The Counters Creek flood alleviation scheme was comprehensive,
but at that point, Thames said that it was not going to do it,
and that instead it would fit non-return valves or FLIPs—flooding
local improvement processes. Non-return valves are simply valves
that stop the sewage going back up a pipe when there is heavy
rain. FLIPs are slightly more sophisticated and are pumps that
are buried under the roadway. They cost a fraction of the cost of
a major renovation scheme and would therefore have saved Thames
Water a considerable amount of money. Ten years on, and two and a
half years after the last significant floods, very few of those
things have been fitted. When residents apply for them, the
answer is that they are low risk, even though some of the people
who are at a low risk have had their homes flooded more than
once. To my mind, that is no more than a cost-saving exercise and
doing the bare minimum.
Typically, floods tend to happen in the summer, but they can
happen in winter. When we have the next floods—as we undoubtedly
will—perhaps the same houses will flood again, or perhaps those
houses will have been lucky enough to get a FLIP or a non-return
valve, in which case the neighbouring properties that do not have
them will be flooded with even more sewage. Does the Minister
really think that Thames Water is a responsible public utility
when it acts in such a way?
The Minister mentioned Tideway. I agree that that is a good
project, and it has been broadly well handled, despite being
built during the covid period. It is mainly on time and to
budget, and it will relieve about 95% of the raw sewage going
into the Thames. One of the worst outflows is at Hammersmith
pumping station, and I will be delighted if we have no more
spouts of raw sewage going up next to Hammersmith bridge, as we
did a couple of years ago. It was not Thames Water who built
that; it was a separate company and not part of Thames Water.
As I have said, Thames Water does not appear to be able to run a
tap, to flush a toilet or to manage its own finances. The company
is partly owned by the Governments of China and Abu Dhabi. Last
summer it summarily got rid of its chief executive, despite
paying her £1.5 million a year. The company announced with a
fanfare that it had managed to obtain £500 million of new
investment from its shareholders, but according to the Financial
Times last week—this is reported again today—the actual status of
that money may well be a loan rather than equity or new
investment. That, I hope, is something the Government will want
to look into.
There have been a series of asset-stripping, incompetent,
careless owners of Thames Water during the period of
privatisation, the worst of which was probably Macquarie, which
owned it for 11 years and paid out an estimated £3 billion in
dividends. Its senior executives took huge payments in the tens
of million over that time, and are now living a life of luxury as
a consequence. That is the legacy of privatisation and this
Government’s record on private utilities.
The hon. Gentleman is right: in my view there was a failure of
regulation in the noughties, because during that period the
financial engineering took place to load those businesses with
debt. Does he accept that that manipulation of debt was completed
by 2009? If he does, what does he have to the say about the
Labour Government in power at the time? Were they asleep at the
wheel?
I accept that the debt has been loaded and that the gearing is
completely out of proportion. Under Macquarie, Thames Water’s
debt went from £4 billion to £10 billion, but it is now at £14
billion under the current owners. I do not know whether the hon.
Gentleman was listening to the radio or has read the media this
morning, but Thames appears to be asking for a 40% rise in bills.
It has £14 billion-worth of debt, and according to press reports,
it might run out of money by next April. That would be the second
scare within a year. This is a company that almost has a licence
to print money. It has 17 million customers, all paying their
bills every year. Its job is obviously not straightforward, but
it is not the most difficult job in the world. It cannot perform
any part of that function well, and it cannot run its own company
well, and that is the parlous state into which it has descended.
I therefore understand that the Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs Committee has called Thames Water before it tomorrow to
answer some questions.
If the Select Committee can do that, what are the Government
doing? I heard an extraordinarily wittering, complacent speech
from the Minister the hon. Member for Taunton Deane () just now. There was no grasp
of the risks. A major company could go under, with a failure to
supply a basic service. What more basic service is there than the
supply of water and sewerage services to a large part of the
population in this country? There was no understanding of the
risks or what the remedies need to be.
This is another area where this Government have failed
completely. It is their job, which I do not believe they will do
in the small amount of time they have left, to take this issue
seriously. They will have to, because otherwise my constituents
and those in London and the south-east will not be able to have
any realistic purveyor of water and sewerage services going
forward. I hope that when the Minister the hon. Member for
Keighley () winds up, he shows some
awareness of those needs.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
order. A significant number of Members still wish to participate.
I will not put a time limit on at present, but it would be
helpful if Members could keep their contributions to about seven
minutes.
5.47pm
(Brentford and Isleworth)
(Lab)
My constituents are not only bill payers and users of Thames
Water, but they live with its decades-long failure to plan and
invest. The River Thames flows alongside Chiswick, Brentford and
Isleworth, where we walk, kayak, row and paddleboard. Too often,
the Thames is polluted with dilute sewage just about every time
it rains. Mogden sewage treatment works, covering 55 acres, sits
in my constituency. For decades, Mogden has been a regular source
of pungent sewage smells and a virulent subspecies of
mosquito.
In February 2020, the streets and parks of Isleworth and the
pristine Duke of Northumberland’s river was flooded with raw—not
even dilute—sewage, because the main sewage intake into Mogden
backed up and punched a hole through into the river. That was a
direct result of maintenance failure and that issue not appearing
on the risk assessment register. This debate matters to my
constituents.
In October 2020, 2 billion litres of dilute sewage was discharged
into the River Thames at Isleworth Ait over just two days. That
was two thirds of the total discharges in 2020. In 2022, that
same sewer storm outflow spilled 20 times for a total of 164
hours, discharging again into the River Thames. Just across the
river at Petersham, another outfall regularly discharges. All of
that is 10 years after Mogden sewage treatment works had its
treatment capacity almost doubled.
I am struggling to find any evidence of any fines that Thames
Water has received for the discharges I have just described. That
is because they are planned. They are permitted discharges. The
discharges of which we are notified are the only ones we know
about, because, as the BBC “Panorama” investigation found, water
companies appear to be covering up illegal sewage discharges,
making sewage pollution disappear from official figures.
The water companies not only process our sewage and storm
run-off, but supply fresh water. As other Members have already
said, however, too much of that fresh water is wasted through
pipe leaks. After too many water main bursts flooded shops and
homes, we had, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith
() described, a programme to
replace the Victorian fresh water pipes across the Thames Water
area, but it seems to have stopped and we are just supposed to
wait until the next burst happens. There is so much more that
Thames Water could be doing to stop the leakages.
The overall picture of our water situation in the Thames Water
area is a failure of oversight—a failure to upgrade the water and
sewage infrastructure continually as London’s population grows,
and as drought and heavy rain become regular aspects of our
weather. For over 20 years—first as a councillor, and as an MP
since 2015—I have been pressuring Thames Water to take action, as
have the Mogden Residents’ Action Group, Hounslow London Borough
Council and other residents. As a result of a legal challenge by
residents, Thames Water was forced to increase the capacity of
the sewage treatment works, to improve its reporting and to do
continuous mosquito eradication.
Thames Water has also done some other work. We have had to put up
with recent roadworks locally, because it has now installed a
pipe to pump excess methane into the main gas grid, which is to
be welcomed. We have had the multibillion-pound tideway project
to take sewage out of the Thames, but it does not benefit those
of us who live upstream of Hammersmith, so we are now faced with
another expensive tunnelling project: the Teddington direct river
abstraction scheme, which will address not high rainfall periods
but periods of drought.
The Teddington DRA is designed to take millions of litres of
water from the Thames, pump it across London to the Lee valley,
and then replace that water with treated effluent from Mogden.
That means a new pipeline and access shafts, so we are going to
have a building site the size of half a football pitch on the
Ivybridge estate, a low-income council estate in my constituency.
The project will involve tunnelling beneath homes. It will also
potentially impact on biodiversity in the River Thames and on
riverside walks, and impact on river users as well. Are there
really no alternatives to this three-year construction project
across my constituency and those neighbouring it? The Environment
Agency certainly raised doubts about the scheme when it wrote to
Thames Water in March this year. The Teddington DRA will save
only a 10th of the 630 million litres lost per day through
leaks.
What are the rewards for this managed incompetence? Thames
Water’s chief executive, Sarah Bentley, received a £496,000
pay-out last year. At least she had the good grace this year to
say that it
“just did not feel like the right thing to take
performance-related pay this year.”
I support the Opposition’s motion calling on the Government to
enable Ofwat to block company bosses’ bonuses where high levels
of sewage are being pumped into rivers; to end self-monitoring
and force all companies to monitor every single water outlet; to
ensure that water bosses face personal criminal liability for
extreme and persistent lawbreaking: and to introduce severe and
automatic fines for illegal discharges that bosses cannot ignore.
We should not be dependent on whistleblowers to find out about
failures. With a boost in the powers of the water regulator,
water bosses who fail to meet high environmental standards on
sewage pollution must be met with significant sanctions to ensure
that they cannot profit from damaging the environment.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and apologise more
generally for jumping up and down like a jack-in-the-box. Is she
aware of Ofwat’s press release of 29 June entitled “Ofwat
delivers decision on executive pay”? In that, it says that it has
recently announced
“new powers that will enable it to stop the payment of
dividends”
directly and in full if a company does not meet its performance
targets, including environmental targets. It goes on to say:
“In line with the new guidance”,
which it published that day,
“Ofwat expects water company remuneration committees to take full
account of performance for customers and the environment”,
and that, if they do not, Ofwat will intervene on every single
basis. Does she not accept that the powers are already in place
and being used?
I would like to see them—I find that Ofwat is just too powerless.
On dividends, Thames Water has not paid them for five years—so it
keeps telling me—but that did not stop it until this year paying
its senior executives very high dividends.
Why should my hard-pressed constituents face an average increase
of £39 in their water bills? They have lost trust in Thames Water
after years and years of scandal, putting up with smells,
mosquitoes, building works, flooding and sewage through their
streets and parks. Having met and talked to Thames Water for
almost 20 years as a councillor and an MP, it is clear to me that
it still has a lot to do to clean up its act. Bills are rising,
service standards remain poor, and we continue to see raw sewage
being pumped into the Thames.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. I have looked at the clock again. After the next speaker,
I will have to put a six-minute time limit on speeches.
5.57pm
(Wakefield)
(Lab/Co-op)
Like every MP across the House, I receive emails and postcards
every week from constituents about the state of our environment,
our nature and our planet. It is clear why our communities care
so much about this: we are one of the most nature-depleted
countries in the world and we are living in a dirty water
emergency. The two main rivers in the Wakefield district, the
River Calder and the River Aire, are the second and third most
polluted rivers in the country. Last year, there were 1,316
discharges of raw sewage into Wakefield’s rivers and waterways,
totalling 5,816 hours—the equivalent of eight months non-stop. It
is no surprise that that is happening under the Tories’ watch.
The Government see action on nature and pollution as something
they must do rather than something they want to do.
This is not the first Opposition day debate where Labour has
called for tougher action on polluters— but, time after time, the
Conservatives block it. We have seen the Environment Agency’s
budget cut, leading to less monitoring and enforcement of the
law. We have seen the Office for Environmental Protection launch
an investigation into whether the Government and the water
companies may have broken the law over sewage discharges, and we
have seen mealy-mouthed statements and weak plans from a
Conservative Government in denial. Labour is clear that the
polluters should pay.
Earlier this year, we saw water companies asking for more money
from customers to fix the problem. With a £111 increase for
constituents in Yorkshire, it is no wonder that they faced such a
backlash. If companies do not improve, the money should come from
dividends going to shareholders, not from increasing people’s
bills. Those bosses who continue to break the rules repeatedly
should face professional and personal sanctions for their
behaviour. The soft-touch approach has to end. To allow us to get
the information we need about the sewage being pumped into our
lakes and rivers, we need mandatory monitoring of all sewage
outlets as well as proper resourcing for the Environment Agency
so that the law can be enforced. We will solve this problem only
with tougher action and by sticking to our commitments. I do not
want my kids to think that the current state of our waterways is
normal. We owe it to future generations to sort this out once and
for all, which is why I urge Members to support Labour’s
motion.6.00pm
(Reading East) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate in
support of the motion. I will raise the issues in my constituency
and the part of Thames Water that covers south-east England
outside London. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for
Hammersmith () and for Brentford and
Isleworth () for talking about many other
issues affecting Thames Water. Their speeches relate more to
customers in London, but they made some excellent general points
about the company’s financing, the weak regulation and the
Government’s failure to act, which I will also highlight.
Serious and persistent problems affect wildlife and thousands of
residents in the Thames Valley, particularly Reading and Woodley.
We have seen things in our area that are truly shocking and
deeply concern many residents. I have run a community survey,
which hundreds of people have filled in to raise their concerns.
This is a widespread issue for many local residents, which
differs slightly from those described further downstream in
London but relates to the level of concern and the impact on
local people.
I will go slightly upstream from Reading towards Oxford, where
there has been a well-known series of incidents linked to
pollution in the Wolvercote stream. All the sewage pollution
further upstream of the Thames, from many tributaries in
Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire, flows through Berkshire into
London and, ultimately, out to the Thames estuary. Residents in
my area are suffering the direct result of that pollution. The
simply appalling levels of pollution are monitored by people in
Oxford. I pay tribute to local campaigners there, including my
hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (). However, Thames Water
does not seem to be fully addressing these matters. I hope that
the company, the Government, the Environment Agency and the
regulator are listening to the debate and will look into this
further.
Of the issues affecting tributaries in our area—an important and
environmentally very sensitive issue—is pollution in chalk
streams. Very close to Reading, the River Pang tributary is a
particularly beautiful chalk stream, which used to be in pristine
condition. There is a beautiful landscape, with rolling hills on
the edge of the downs in Berkshire and gentle footpaths next to
the river. When I walked along there some time ago, I noticed
that the riverbed had no apparent life in parts of it. Local
anglers, many of whom live in Reading, have raised serious
concerns about the Pang, and about other chalk streams across
southern England. They are a unique ecosystem found only in the
south of this country, where water comes up from the chalk
aquifer into streams and flows into major rivers such as the
Thames. I hope the Minister will take note of the specific issues
affecting chalk streams. I would appreciate it if he or his
colleague could write to me about them and the other specific
issues in the Thames Valley and Thames catchment. I thank the
Angling Trust for its excellent work on this matter.
Another appalling local issue is the long-standing pollution
incident in a tributary called Foudry brook, which comes from a
spring in the northern part of Hampshire and flows under the M4
motorway, through the outskirts of Reading, and ultimately into
the Kennet and the Thames. I saw the pollution when I was running
the Reading half-marathon this year. There were pools and little
tributaries of water that smelled pungently, and were a lurid
neon green colour that one would see in an artificial and
lifeless place, completely out of place next to the willows and
bushes near the river. It should never have happened, and clearly
was linked to the pollution incident upstream a few miles
away.
I hope that the Minister is noting the level of revulsion that
people like me have exhibited when we have seen that. It is an
offensive thing to see when trying to enjoy a walk next to a
river or, like many thousands of local residents, when living
near a river. People who live along several miles of banks of the
Kennet, the Thames and the Loddon have to put up with sewage
floating past their houses. There has been a series of other
terrible incidents, and I could go on and on. Many are happening
all the time and, as we heard earlier, they are not properly
monitored.
On Saturday, on a family walk, I experienced yet another such
incident. Imagine the scene: frosty countryside just outside
Reading—absolutely beautiful—with heavy frost on hedges and
wildlife in abundance, walking down the hill through a nature
reserve to the River Thames. I could see a heron on the bank of
the river spying for fish and there was a cormorant diving into
the Thames. In the middle of the river was what I thought were
either flecks of snow—it was very, very cold—or rain or leaves.
In fact, they were bubbles from sewage pollution. I could see
banks of foam building up around small islands in the river,
sometimes nearly a foot high, with white, brown creamy foam which
was clearly linked to sewage pollution. The river was very high
and I could tell that the outlets had been opened upstream. It
was absolutely disgusting. That is the type of pollution
affecting people’s enjoyment of beautiful countryside, riverside
walks, and their own gardens and homes in the south of England
just upstream from London. I hope the Minister will note that and
look into it.
I am aware of time and I do not want to overstep my limit. I
commend the action plan put forward by my hon. Friend the Member
for Croydon North (). I hope the Minister is
listening and paying attention to what we are saying, because
this is a very serious problem and I hope he will look at it
again.
6.06pm
(Somerton and Frome) (LD)
Yesterday in Somerset, 67 millimetres of rain fell in 24 hours
and 10 flood warnings have been issued at the time of speaking.
This is not a one-off event. Flash floods in May flooded nearly
100 homes in my constituency alone. Yesterday I had a call from a
constituent in her 80s with significant mobility issues. The
entire ground floor of her home was flooded and she was
struggling to leave safely. The water is not clean. The flash
floods included raw human waste from an outdated local sewage
system that failed to cope after decades of neglect. In 2021, all
of Somerset’s five rivers were rated poor by the Environment
Agency. It has been left to volunteers, such as the Friends of
the River Frome, to take action. Half of Somerset’s bathing sites
are rated poor and plenty of areas across the country, such as
Farleigh Hungerford in my constituency, urgently need Government
investment and attention to help clean up that pollution.
The Liberal Democrat amendment to the Environment Bill, now the
Environment Act 2021, called for a sewage tax on pre-tax profits
of water companies to fund cleaning our rivers. Statistics from
the Environment Agency show that 0% of rivers in England are
classed as good. An ambassador to the Rivers Trust, Imogen
Grant—an Olympic rower as well as a qualified medic—told me that
she has rowed past used nappies, used tampons and even a fridge
on the River Thames. The board of Thames Water, which is causing
most of that pollution, should resign today.
The risks to human life are bad enough and my constituents have
their MP to speak loudly for them. My hon. Friend the Member for
Westmorland and Lonsdale () rightly spoke up in this place last night for victims
of sewage pollution. My colleagues and I are extremely
disappointed that the Government voted not to provide
compensation. We hope they will listen to our campaign for a new
blue flag standard for rivers in England and Wales. Imagine how
constituents in Westmorland and Lonsdale feel today after that
treachery from the Government, and after the BBC’s “Panorama”
investigation showed the duplicity of the water companies. The
Government have led our constituents up the creek, taken away the
paddle, and then sold the boat to water company bosses.
I am sure the Chamber is aware of the “Panorama” report
yesterday, which alleged that United Utilities misreported sewage
pollution events and downgraded incidents to the lowest level so
that they were not counted as pollution incidents. The BBC
alleges that United Utilities, by doing that, was awarded the
right to raise £5.1 million by increasing bills for their 7
million customers next year. The Liberal Democrats are calling
for a criminal investigation to be opened immediately. The
Government must support us.
I am concerned about the impact that this scandal will have on my
constituents’ finances. It is simply not fair that we should pay
higher bills because water firms continue to pump out raw sewage.
Water firm executives paid themselves £30.6 million in bonuses in
2020-21, and even the Environment Agency has described their
behaviour as criminal. The Government should listen to Liberal
Democrat policies and replace the friendly goldfish Ofwat—a
harmless decoration with a poor memory—with a fierce and
determined new regulator, a tiger shark.
It is shocking that water firms are not only polluting our
waterways but using dodgy sewage monitors, the number of which
actually increased this year. I was shocked to hear reports that
in areas such as Eastbourne in Sussex, there are concerns that
Southern Water’s monitoring service, Beachbuoy, is not updating
until days after sewage discharges on to a beach. Swimmers are
taking their last moonlight swim before the great white
attacks—but the great white is a patch of human waste with Weil’s
disease and dysentery dripping from its teeth.
Our waterways can recover, but they need action now, before it is
too late. We need a tax on sewage water companies, not huge
holiday bonuses. We need a tough, toothed tiger shark of a
regulator. We need our environment to have long-term protection
from a serious and committed Government. Liberal Democrats
support a public benefit company model for water companies so
that particular economic and environmental policy objectives must
be considered explicitly in the running of the companies. This
Government need to listen to the people speaking up for our
silent water. The clock is ticking.
6.11pm
(Bristol East) (Lab)
As toxic sewage spills into our lakes, rivers and seas, it is
clear that the Government are up to their neck in it—and this is
not a stand-alone scandal. It perfectly encapsulates 13 years of
Tory misrule by a Government who do not believe in governing, who
see regulation only as a burden and who think that businesses
always know best, allowing privatised utilities to make huge
profits at their captive customers’ expense and the bosses to
line their own pockets, and ignoring the need for investment in
our public realm and the infrastructure that we need.
In 2022, as we have heard, not a single river in England was free
of chemical contamination, just 14% had “good” ecological status,
and 75% of UK rivers pose a serious risk to human health, the
single biggest cause of pollution being untreated sewage.
However, we need to look at other causes of pollution as well.
The Environmental Audit Committee warned in January 2022 of a
“chemical cocktail” from plastics, slurry and farm run-off that
threatens water quality, and criticised the outdated, underfunded
and inadequate monitoring regimes that make it difficult to
determine the health of England’s rivers. CHEM Trust welcomed
that report as
“a vital call to arms to improve the quality of water in our
rivers”,
and called for action to tackle chemical pollution at source.
As we heard from the right hon. Member for Hereford and South
Herefordshire (), whose frustration was clear,
industrial-scale agriculture is also an increasing problem. The
River Wye has a massive problem with phosphate pollution linked
to intensive poultry production. There are about 20 million
chickens in the Wye catchment at any one time, and much of the
manure is spread on surrounding fields, with nutrients leaching
into the water supply. It is estimated that even if the source of
the pollution were removed now, it would take between 10 and 20
years for the soil pollution to be reduced.
For now, however, I will stick to the subject of sewage, in which
regard Wessex Water is a particularly bad offender. We have seen
numerous cases of sickness among swimmers at popular local
wild-swimming spots in areas around my constituency, such as
Conham River Park and Warleigh weir. In 2021, Bristol Cable
reported that between the beginning of January and the end of
August, Wessex Water had dumped raw sewage into our local rivers
14,000 times, and sadly things have not improved: just yesterday,
it dumped revolting raw sewage into the River Avon for more than
seven hours.
Water companies are supposed to dump untreated sewage only during
“exceptional” weather, but as “exceptional” is not even defined,
they feel that they can dump untreated sewage whenever it
rains—and, of course, in the UK rainy weather is far from
exceptional. The BBC found that in 2022 Wessex Water dumped raw
sewage into our rivers for 1,527 hours on dry days. That is meant
to be illegal, yet Wessex Water, like fellow dry spillers
Southern Water and Thames Water, was allowed to keep
operating.
I have already mentioned the massive £982,000 take-home pay of
the Wessex Water CEO in 2021-22. He has been with the company a
very long time—since the 1990s—and if his pay then was adjusted
for inflation, he would be on about £120,000, so he has had about
a 700% pay rise. As I said, Wessex Water is now looking to its
customers and wants to put up bills by £150 a year to pay for
planned investment. I would argue that that money should already
have been spent on maintaining infrastructure.
Last night’s BBC “Panorama” programme exposed the failures of
self-regulation, where water companies get to mark their own
homework and cheat the system with ease. It is telling that we
had to rely on whistleblowers from the Environment Agency telling
“Panorama” what was going on at United Utilities, rather than the
Environment Agency taking enforcement action itself. In the last
three years—2020, 2021 and 2022—931 serious pollution incidents
were reported in north-west England but the Environment Agency
went to inspect only six of them. We are not blaming the
Environment Agency for that. We know that it is under-resourced,
and we know how little respect this Government have for our
regulators and the protections they provide. Its environmental
protection budget was halved by DEFRA between 2010 and 2020.
We see this time and again, with the Tories railing against red
tape and bureaucracy and slashing costs, then wondering why
everything has gone to pieces, when in effect they have created a
wild west where companies can pollute at will. Companies do
sometimes get caught. In 2020, for example, Severn Trent was
fined £800,000 for letting 3.8 million litres of raw sewage enter
a Shropshire stream, but these fines seem to be little or no
deterrent because the companies try to pass the cost on to their
captive customer base instead.
As foul waste poisons our waterways, killing fish, destroying
habitats, seeping into our soil and making people sick, it is
clear that self-regulation is not sustainable. We need water
companies to face the consequences of their failures, and that is
what Labour is calling for: criminal responsibility. Water bosses
should face personal criminal liability for law breaking related
to pollution, with severe and automatic fines for illegal
discharges. It is time to clean up the filth.
6.17pm
(Bradford East) (Lab)
The right to clean water is one of the most fundamental, and that
is why this debate is very important to my constituents. I rise
to support the excellent case put forward from the Opposition
Front Bench today. It is interesting to note that, in a debate as
important as this, only one or two Government Members have
bothered to turn up, and that the majority of their
contributions, including those of Ministers, have focused on what
happened 13 years ago under the Labour Government. When they
start with that, they have already lost their case. It is
convenient for them to somehow forget the 13 years that this
Government have been in charge. They seem to forget the 13 years
of a lack of regulation and inspection, the 13 years in which
they hollowed out the Environment Agency and Ofwat, the 13 years
of halving the funding, the 13 years of millions in bonuses being
paid to water bosses and the 13 years in which families in our
constituencies have had rises in their water bills effectively to
support that.
Labour Members have spoken about how, in recent years, our
rivers, coastlines and waterways have been polluted by the
dumping of raw, untreated sewage, with over 800 sewage dumps a
day across the country last year. In Bradford, sewage was dumped
5,200 times in 2022, putting us in the top 10 regions for sewage
dumping.
Although we are wholly landlocked, one of Yorkshire's major
rivers, the River Aire, runs right through the Bradford district,
and it is here that the majority of dumping incidents take place,
according to the Rivers Trust. In the constituency of the
Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley ()—I welcome him to his
place—an outlet near Riddlesden recorded 96 spillages totalling
more than 1,000 hours, and an outlet near Bingley recorded 69
spillages totalling more than 800 hours. In my own constituency,
an outlet at Apperley Bridge recorded 96 spillages totalling
almost 600 hours.
Although dumping directly into rivers has sadly become expected
under this Government, the scale of dumping into smaller
tributaries, becks and streams in my constituency is particularly
alarming. In 2022, sewage was dumped 59 times into Fagley beck,
41 times into Bolton beck, 110 times into East brook, 36 times
into Haigh beck and 75 times into Carr beck, all of which are
watercourses that run through or along the back of residential
estates. And that is just what has been recorded—the actual
number of incidents in which sewage has been dumped in Bradford
is potentially far higher.
Given the scale of sewage dumping across Bradford, my
constituents are asking just what Yorkshire Water is doing to
tackle it. The answer? Hiking water bills by an average of £111
in 2023-24, to pass the cost of the urgently needed sewer
upgrades, following years of failing to invest properly, directly
on to families in my constituency, even as it paid out £62
million in dividends to other businesses in its parent group.
Although the chief executive of Yorkshire Water has reported that
she will voluntarily refuse a bonus that would have been as high
as the eye-watering figure of £800,000, she still receives a
staggering base salary of £515,000 on top of £140,000 in
relocation expenses. This makes it clear that, in the week that
Yorkshire Water has been forced to pay a record £1 million civil
sanction by the Environment Agency, this public relations
decision is not as principled as it first seems.
When water company chief executives and directors have presided
over an unprecedented wave of sewage dumping while pocketing huge
salaries and bumper payments, and when the Government have proven
themselves completely incapable of tackling the crisis and
holding water companies to account, it is obvious that something
has to change. They should start by empowering the water
regulator, Ofwat, to ban the payment of bonuses to the bosses of
water companies that pollute our rivers, lakes and seas, and they
should end by shutting down the monopoly and stranglehold of
privately owned water companies on our water network by taking
them into public control and ownership, where they belong.
6.23pm
(West Lancashire) (Lab)
Despite what Conservative Members would have us believe, this
Government inherited some of the cleanest rivers and waterways in
Britain’s history when they came to power almost 14 years ago.
[Interruption.] It is true. When Labour left office in 2010, the
Environment Agency stated that our rivers were healthier than
they had been at any point since the industrial revolution. Two
years earlier, 80% of water quality tests in the Thames were
found to be very good or good, compared with only 58% in
1990.
So what has changed? Thirteen and a half years of Tory government
have polluted our coasts and our waterways, and we arrive at the
appalling situation where over 800 sewage dumps are taking place
across our country every single day. This is a green and pleasant
land, but in the last seven years alone over 1,200 years’ worth
of raw sewage has been dumped into British waters.
My constituency of West Lancashire has a proud history of growing
communities, but how can the farms and nurseries of West
Lancashire have any confidence in the water they use to grow the
food that ends up on Britain’s plates? The growers in my
constituency care about the quality of food they produce. If only
they had a Government who cared about the quality of water used
to produce it. Not one single river in Britain is classed as
being in a healthy condition—not one.
It is not even true that the Government can be accused of
inaction. It is worse than that: they have blocked amendments to
the Environment Act 2021 brought forward by Labour to bring an
end to sewage dumping scandals. My constituents expect bonuses to
be paid only when people deliver and perform above and beyond how
they are expected to. Other than the air we breathe, which is
another sticky wicket for this Government but a topic for another
day, is there anything more vital than water? My constituents do
not expect bonuses to be awarded for polluting our rivers and
seas while bosses’ and shareholders’ pockets are lined with
cash.
To add insult to injury, water companies are asking customers to
pay an extra £156 a year to pay for problems caused by the
chronic under-investment in the network, while £14 million of
bonuses were paid in just one year to the very people who have
failed to maintain the system adequately. Under no circumstances
is that acceptable.
Ofwat must have the power to ban the payment of bonuses to water
bosses who allow significant levels of raw sewage to be pumped
into our precious rivers, lakes and seas. If that had been in
place over the last year, six out of nine water bosses’ bonuses
would have been blocked. They were not.
Labour will put the water industry into special measures and
ensure change. We will end the farce of companies self-monitoring
and require all companies to monitor all—all—water outlets. Water
bosses that persistently allow their companies to break the law
on sewage dumping will face personal criminal responsibility.
The current system for imposing fines simply is not working. Long
drawn-out, expensive court cases are no credible deterrent for
water companies and the Government know it, so Labour will
introduce severe and automatic fines for illegal discharges. My
constituents have a right to expect to be able to enjoy our
rivers and coasts without fear of contamination from raw
sewage—and they have a right to expect water polluters not only
to pay the price where contamination does occur, but not to be
rewarded for allowing it to happen. Labour’s plans will shift the
burden on to the water companies, rather than expecting the
British public to carry the can.
Under the Government’s plans, the Tory sewage scandal will
continue for decades to come, but the next Labour Government will
build a better Britain, where water bosses are held accountable
for their negligence and the British public can have confidence
that our waterways are clean and safe to enjoy.
6.28pm
(Birkenhead) (Lab)
Thank you very much for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker. I
congratulate my party on securing this important debate.
Last year, in my constituency of Birkenhead alone, there were the
ominous number of 666 sewage discharges, running for a total
duration of over 8,000 hours. The effect for businesses and
families in coastal communities like ours is devastating: it
denies young people, many of whom are from deprived areas with
little access to nature outside of our borough, of the natural
spaces that by rights belong to them, while jeopardising the many
businesses that rely on tourism.
Elsewhere across the country the situation is even graver,
particularly for our precious chalk streams—which can be found
almost exclusively in Britain—many of which now face an
existential threat. Meanwhile, water company bosses continue to
pay themselves millions of pounds in inflated salaries and
bonuses, while the Government seem content to look away, even as
evidence emerges of water companies covering up sewage discharges
and making evidence of sewage disappear from official
records.
The motion my party laid before the House today seeks to tackle
the perverse injustice at the heart of our broken water system—a
system that guarantees private profits for the water bosses and
public squalor for the rest of us. The motion signals a clear and
welcome change from the attitudes of successive Secretaries of
State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who all too
often, when speaking from the Government Dispatch Box, have acted
as if their job is to defend the interests of the water companies
and their shareholders, rather than the constituents who elected
them to this place.
From the hundreds of messages I have received from my
constituents on this issue, it is clear that the people of
Birkenhead expect us to go much further. They are sick to death
with the decades-long rip-off that began with the privatisation
of the water industry in 1989. They have had enough of pernicious
standing charges and their bills rising year on year—they are set
to rise, on average, by another 35% by the end of this
decade—while water bosses who preside over crumbling
infrastructure pocket millions in bonuses.
My constituents want to see water returned to public ownership.
According to research conducted by Savanta, on behalf of the
publication Left Foot Forward, 70% of the British public share
that view. We need to deal with the practical and deep-rooted
issues facing the water industry here and now, and confront the
simple truth that seems self-evident to the vast majority of the
British public: the three decades in which we have treated water
as a private commodity have been a manifest failure.
There has been much discussion in recent days about the
entrepreneurial spirit that the Thatcher Government are said to
have let loose with their policy of privatisation and
deregulation. Today, that spirit can be seen most clearly in the
tide of sewage swelling our rivers and lakes and drowning our
beaches. We must prepare to face the challenges to come, because
as we confront a future that will be increasingly defined by
climate breakdown, drought, water scarcity and extreme weather
events, the question of how we most effectively marshal our
shared natural resources will be crucial.
I remind the House, as I have before, that the chief executive of
the Environment Agency warned that large parts of the country are
now staring into the “jaws of death”—the point at which we will
not have enough water supply to meet our needs. To allow the
profit motive to continue to dictate the management of a resource
as vital as water, and to perpetuate a system in which
shareholder profits take precedence over much-needed investments
in infrastructure improvements, would be not just short-sighted,
but an absolute dereliction of duty.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the shadow Minister.
6.32pm
(Chesterfield) (Lab)
Sometimes we witness revelations that are incredibly shocking,
yet simultaneously not surprising at all. And so it was with the
exposure of this week’s “Panorama” investigation that United
Utilities, one of Britain’s largest water companies, had been
systematically falsifying its environmental performance to
mislead consumers and regulators and to push up profits.
Although Labour had decided to use one of our precious Opposition
day debates to discuss water companies and directors’ bonuses in
advance of those revelations, they have clearly added to the
urgency and salience of the debate. Several Members commented on
the fact that the issue has a much higher profile that it did. I
pay tribute to Feargal Sharkey, who has done some amazing
campaigning and played a significant role in raising the issue of
water quality. He has proved that he has not just “a good heart”,
but a switched on head as well.
It has been a good debate; what was said was important, as well
as what was not said. The demeanour of Government Members spoke
more loudly than the words we heard from them. My hon. Friend the
Member for Birkenhead () mentioned the number of
Secretaries of State there have been—we have had six Secretaries
of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs since 2019.
Interestingly, the newest one, the right hon. Member for North
East Cambridgeshire (), could not be bothered to
turn up and respond to the debate. The Minister who did respond,
the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (), could not wait to race away
and has not returned to this important debate, despite having
spoken at its start.
Even more powerful was the row upon row of empty green Benches
behind the Minister during the debate. It is clear that
Conservative Members of Parliament do not want to be anywhere
near here to speak up for their Government’s record on this
issue. I have great affection for the Under-Secretary of State
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for
Taunton Deane, but she appeared to inhabit a parallel universe
when it came to the state of our water industry. Had she been
here to listen to the debate, she would have heard Member after
Member reflect the fury of their constituents and of a raft of
organisations including the Environment Agency, which last year
described the performance of English water companies as “very
disappointing”, saying it was
“simply unacceptable to see a decline in this vital metric”,
in reference to the increase in pollution incidents.
Members have reflected what Surfers Against Sewage has said, and
the Rivers Trust has slammed the Government’s performance, yet
the Minister—[Interruption.] She marches back into the Chamber
just as I was saying that if she had been here, she would have
heard about a very different reality in respect of our water
industry from the one that she appeared to inhabit. She described
the “wonderful water” that we deserve and are all experiencing.
She seemed to believe that she and this Government had brought
forward strong measures that Labour and the Liberal Democrats had
stood against. She said that if we introduced automatic fines, it
would somehow be good for the water companies because it would
prevent other kinds of action from being taken.
I am afraid it was really quite bizarre to listen to that
depiction of what has happened, but there were many other, very
relevant, contributions to the debate. They started with the hon.
Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger),
who cut through the word that might be used to describe some of
what we heard and what is also in our rivers. He clearly admitted
that in the 23 years he has been a Member of Parliament, the
situation has got worse. He did not buy the idea that we are
living in some golden age of river hygiene.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark
() spoke about the broken
Government promises on environmental standards; the right hon.
Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire () spoke of his frustration at
the Government’s failure on this issue; and my hon. Friend the
Member for Easington () gave us a passionate and
evocative description of the beautiful coastline in his area, and
accused the Minister of—just like, unfortunately, the surfers in
the constituency of the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay
() —going through the
motions.
rose—
Mr Perkins
I will come to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
The hon. Member for Broadland () made an interesting
contribution. He slated the record of the Liberal Democrat
Minister between 2013 and 2015, apparently forgetting that that
Minister served under a Conservative Secretary of State, in a
Conservative-led Government who were implementing policies as a
result of the Conservative austerity programme. I stand behind no
one when it comes to condemning Liberal Democrats for their
record between 2010 and 2015, but even I thought that was a bit
rich.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith () spoke about the performance
and failure of Thames Water. He said that the Under-Secretary of
State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member
for Taunton Deane had given an extraordinarily complacent speech.
I think he spoke for many when he said that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth () spoke about 2 billion litres
of sewage outflow in two days in her area in 2020; my hon. Friend
the Member for Reading East () spoke about the appalling
levels of pollution in his constituency; and the hon. Member for
Somerton and Frome () spoke of the duplicity of
water companies on self-monitoring. It is important to say that
although some Members gave credit for the increased amount of
monitoring, the “Panorama” programme has called into doubt
whether we can believe any of the figures we see.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East () rightly referred to the
other causes of river pollution—another important factor, which
was not covered as much in this debate. She also spoke about the
lack of capacity in the slimmed-down Environment Agency to take
on those alternative causes of river pollution. My hon. Friend
the Member for West Lancashire (), in a very good speech,
mentioned the Environment Agency saying in 2010 that we had the
healthiest rivers since the industrial revolution, and its
frustration that we are seeing that progress stall under this
Government.
I take note of what the shadow Minister says. He mentions both
Surfers Against Sewage and surfers in my constituency. Will he
acknowledge that when Surfers Against Sewage began its campaign
in 1990, less than 25% of the beaches in the UK met the
acceptable minimum standard for bathing water quality, and today
that figure is over 90%?
Mr Perkins
The first thing to say is that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely
right: the state of the beaches back in 1990 was even more
disgraceful than it is today. The vast majority of the progress
was made between 1997 and 2010, almost—[Interruption.] Yes, it
was. It was almost up to 80% by then. If we read its reports, the
Environment Agency expresses its frustration that the significant
progress made in that period has slowed since then.
Can the shadow Minister explain to me why it was that the Labour
Government were taken to court by the European Union in 2009 for
failing to address the issue?
Mr Perkins
The hon. Gentleman should listen to what the Environment Agency
has said. It has said the improvements in water quality have
slowed under this Government and it has expressed its frustration
that we are plateauing.
The hon. Gentleman said in his comments that Ofwat already has
the power to ban bonuses. If he had listened to the Minister, he
would have known that that is not true. What Ofwat has at the
moment is the power to ensure that those bonuses are not paid
from the money paid by bill payers. That is not the same as what
we propose. Our proposal is very different, so he was incorrect
to say that the powers we are proposing are those that currently
exist.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead () summed up the difference
between the behaviour of bosses and the experience of his
constituents. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North
() made clear earlier, the
Government have been complicit in this disgraceful practice,
through the funding cuts that my hon. Friend the Member for
Wakefield () referred to. They have
cut the Environment Agency’s funding in half, leading to the
dramatic reduction in monitoring, enforcement and prosecutions
that in turn has led to the dramatic increase in illegal sewage
discharges.
Now, to make matters worse, the Government are simply ignoring
the BBC’s investigation. It was shocking that the Environment
Agency did not provide anyone for that programme; it is a
Government regulator and should be answering for the performance
of the water companies. While Tory Ministers claim that they have
a grip on this issue, even the Environment Agency has been forced
to admit that the water companies’ performance in the most recent
year was “completely unacceptable”.
Britain cannot afford years more of the decline in its natural
habitat and of worsening water quality, but these years of
failure may finally be at an end. Soon, people across Britain
will have an opportunity to bring down the curtain on what by
then will be 14 years of failure, and to elect a Labour
Government to address this shocking situation. The Labour party’s
DEFRA team have already met with water company bosses and, while
the meetings were cordial, the message was unmistakable: the days
of a Government turning a blind eye to the failure and corruption
of self-regulation will be at an end under Labour.
That starts with punishing the worst actors. We will give the
water regulator the power to ban bonuses for water bosses until
they have cleaned up their filth, but that is only the first step
to clean up the water industry. Labour will go further, putting
the industry under special measures. We will end the pointless
practice of self-monitoring, and will require water companies to
install remote monitors on every outlet overseen by the
regulators and the Government. Any illegal spill will be met with
an immediate and severe fine—no more delays, no more appeals, no
more lenient fines that are cheaper than paying to upgrade
crumbling infrastructure. Rogue water bosses who overseer
repeated severe and illegal sewage discharges will face personal
criminal liability.
The days of failure under this Government are now coming to an
end. A Labour Government will get our water cleaned up and
resolved.
6.45pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs ()
The Government welcome the opportunity to set out the scale of
our action to tackle water quality. We have been consistently
clear that the failure of water companies to reduce sewage
discharge adequately is completely unacceptable. We made that
clear throughout the debate and in the opening remarks from the
Treasury Bench. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member
for Taunton Deane (), who previously held the water
quality brief and did a lot of work to bring forward the
Environment Act 2021.
The Government have clearly set out that we are taking strong and
decisive action to reduce sewage discharges that harm our rivers
and coastlines. I am aware of and recognise the many concerns
that our constituents raise regarding water quality. They, like
all of us in this House, rightly want to see the quality of our
waters improve. That is why the Conservative Government are
taking action.
We introduced the Environment Act, which introduced legally
binding targets for water quality and a new requirement for water
companies to publish data on storm overflows, and gave Ofwat new
powers to clamp down on dividends and bonuses. Those are the
actions of this Conservative Government in introducing the
Environment Act. Many Opposition Members did not vote for many of
the measures included in that Act. That is what this Government
are doing in taking action.
I welcome the Minister to his new role. I thank him for giving
way, given that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (), who opened the debate,
repeatedly refused to take any interventions from me.
The Minister talks about the importance that our constituents
place on water quality, so I have one request for him. Sitting on
the Secretary of State’s desk—as the hon. Member for Taunton
Deane knows, because she responded to my debate on this topic in
September—is the water resources management plan for the
south-east. It contains the highly controversial proposal for the
Teddington direct river abstraction, which will see recycled
sewage put into the River Thames and water taken out. There are
real concerns in the Environment Agency about water quality.
Moormead Park in my constituency, and Ham Lands in that of my
hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (), face being ripped up to
build the scheme. The Secretary of State has to make a decision,
so will the Minister ask him to take that scheme off the
table?
I noted that the hon. Lady was not here for the whole debate to
listen to the many positive contributions from the Conservative
Benches. However, we have already spoken about this, and we have
a meeting in the diary next week to discuss it, which I look
forward to.
Our plan for water focuses specifically on increased investment,
which includes £2.2 billion from water companies to spend on
improving infrastructure; stronger regulation, including more
Environment Agency inspections of waste water treatment works;
banning the sale of wet wipes; proposals for new restrictions on
forever chemicals that can be found in waters; and tougher
enforcement, including bigger penalties for water companies and
tighter control over their dividend payments. Let me be clear:
the Government will hold the water sector and enforcement
agencies to account. The Secretary of State and I are working
closely with the new leadership of the Environment Agency to
ensure and reiterate to them and the water industry the
expectation that they will be held to account and to the highest
possible standards.
I will be glad to respond now to the many points that have been
made by Members from across the House, starting with storm
overflows, which many Members talked about. The Government are
taking steps to prioritise storm overflows. We have now launched
the most ambitious plan to address storm overflow sewage
discharges by driving the largest infrastructure programme in
water company history. We have been consistently clear that the
failure of water companies to reduce sewage discharges adequately
is totally unacceptable, and our new strict targets, which were
brought out through the Environment Act, will see the toughest
ever crackdown on sewage spills.
However, that all starts with monitoring—monitoring is absolutely
key if we are to carry out enforcement. The hon. Member for West
Lancashire () may claim that water was
previously better quality, but how on earth does she know? In
2010, under the Labour Administration, just 7% of storm overflows
were being monitored; now, in 2023, we have driven that figure up
to 91%, and by the end of this year we will be at 100%. The
Opposition may make these ridiculous claims, but how on earth do
they know? Under their watch, only 7% of storm overflows were
being monitored. These monitors will allow us to understand the
impact of sewage discharges in more detail than ever before, so
we will hold water companies to account and target improvements
where they are most needed.
To pick up on the point that was made by my hon. Friend the
Member for St Austell and Newquay (), it was the Labour
Administration who introduced self-monitoring. It is Labour’s
plan now to overturn one of the rules that it itself brought in.
This Government have passed the Environment Act, which has
required a landmark £6 billion investment through the
storm-overflow reduction plan. We have instructed water companies
to deliver more than 800 storm-overflow improvements across the
country, and we are delivering Europe’s largest infrastructure
project through the Thames tideway tunnel to reduce storm
overflows by 95% in the Thames Water region.
I will now turn to the performance of regulators, which has been
mentioned by many Members from across the House, including the
hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (). We are working with
regulators to ensure they have the tools and resources they need
to hold water companies to account: we have provided an extra
£2.2 million per year to the EA specifically for water company
enforcement activity, and in May 2023, we provided a £11.3
million funding increase to enable Ofwat to treble its
enforcement capacity. We have legislated to introduce unlimited
penalties for water companies that breach their environmental
permits and to expand the range of offences for which penalties
can be applied. Those changes will provide the Environment Agency
with the tools it needs to hold water companies to account. I
only hope that the Opposition welcome the unlimited penalties
that this Conservative Government are bringing in.
As for what we are doing to focus on performance, in 2022, Ofwat
announced provisional financial penalties of almost £135 million
for underperformance, applying to 11 water companies. That money
is rightly being returned to customers through water bills during
the 2024-25 period. This Government are taking the polluter pays
principle seriously—that is exactly what the provisions of the
Environment Act bring into play. However, the answer is not a
lengthy bureaucratic process carried out at the taxpayer’s
expense to create an entirely new regulator, as the Opposition
have proposed. That sums up what the Labour party is about:
process, not progress. This Government are absolutely committed
to ensuring that progress is made on improving water quality.
The issue of dividends has been raised by many Members, and I
will pick up on some of the points that the hon. Members for
Wakefield () and for Easington () have mentioned. In March
2023, Ofwat announced new measures that will enable it to take
enforcement action against water companies that do not link
dividend payments to performance. That change will require water
company boards to take account of their performance when deciding
whether they make dividend payments; if the payment of dividends
would risk the financial resilience of a company, Ofwat now has
the power to stop that payment.
As a result of this Government’s giving more power to Ofwat, it
has increased power to take enforcement action if dividends paid
do not reflect performance. As for some of the points that have
been made about Thames Water, we have seen today that Ofwat is
investigating Thames Water, which shows that the powers this
Government gave to Ofwat are already being utilised.
rose—
I will pick up on the points made about Thames Water by the hon.
Members for Hammersmith () and for Brentford and
Isleworth () in relation to penalties.
Since 2015, 12 prosecutions have been instigated against Thames
Water, amounting to £37 million. Ofwat will rightly hold
companies to account where they do not clearly demonstrate the
link between dividend payments and performance. That has been
made possible through the Environment Act.
I want to turn to bonuses. Quite rightly, picking up on the point
made by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay, in
June Ofwat confirmed new plans that will ensure customers no
longer fund executive directors’ bonus payments where they have
not been sufficiently justified. Ofwat will regularly review all
executive bonus payments, and where companies do not meet
expectations, it will step in to ensure that customers do not
pick up the bill, which is incredibly important to this
Government. These new rules have already placed pressure on water
companies to take action.
This Government will always prioritise bill payers, which is why
in 2022-23 no water or sewage company in England and Wales is
paying a CEO a bonus out of the money from customers’ bills,
while half of CEOs are taking no bonuses whatsoever. This is the
first time that has happened in the water industry, and it
reflects the industry’s recognition that the Government and the
public expect better. The Labour party, however, would simply
raise taxes on water companies, which would send household bills
rocketing sky-high. This Conservative Government have been
absolutely clear that the polluter must pay, and that is exactly
what we are doing by giving Ofwat more powers to regulate the
industry and hold water companies to account.
Turning to debt in the industry, which was a point made by the
hon. Member for Hammersmith—
rose—
I will give way in a second.
Ofwat is monitoring companies’ gearing levels closely and has
encouraged water companies to de-gear, with the average gearing
across the sector falling to 69%, down from 72% in 2021. In March
2023, Ofwat announced new powers that will strengthen the
financial resilience of the sector, including powers to stop
water companies making dividend payments earlier this year. Those
powers are already being put in place by Ofwat, despite what the
Opposition may say.
Many Members across the House made the point about bathing water
quality, including my right hon. Friend the Member for South
Holland and The Deepings ( ) and my hon. Friend the Member
for St Austell and Newquay. Bathing water has improved
significantly over time. In 2010, the proportion of areas with
good or excellent bathing water, meeting the highest standards in
force at the time, was 76%. Now, in 2023, 90% are classified as
good or excellent, which is a significant improvement. It has to
be noted that Labour actively did nothing in its time to improve
bathing water quality, but this Conservative Government are
delivering on that point.
Would the Minister acknowledge that the reduction in bathing
water quality is often to do not with sewage, but with water
run-off from agriculture?
Picking up on that point, the quality is not only to do with
sewage. Of course, that is one of the factors, but there are many
other factors to do with agricultural run-off, as well as with
faeces from birds and from dogs, particularly in beach
environments. I have to be clear that where water companies are
significantly contributing to the poor designations that have
been identified for bathing water, we will take action.
The Labour party is all talk when it comes to protecting our
water, but look no further than Labour-run Wales, where sewage is
discharged into waterways more frequently. Just remember that
this is what the Leader of the Opposition wants as a blueprint
for a Labour Government in England. Look at Labour’s record in
government, when it managed to monitor only a tiny fraction of
storm overflows—only 7% in 2010—and we are now at nearly 100 %
this year. If we do not monitor, we cannot enforce. Look at its
voting history. Labour and the Lib Dems voted against reducing
pollution in the Agriculture Act 2020. Look at their faces now.
They know deep down that this Conservative Government are taking
action.
(Tynemouth) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No.36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question accordingly put.
Resolved,
That this House regrets that 13 years of successive Conservative
Governments have broken the water industry and its regulatory
framework; is deeply concerned about the scale of the sewage
crisis and the devastating impact it is having on the UK’s
rivers, lakes and seas; believes it is indefensible that
executives at UK water companies were paid over £14 million in
bonuses between 2020 and 2021 despite inflicting significant
environmental and human damage; condemns the Government for being
too weak to tackle the crisis and hold water company bosses to
account; calls on the Government to empower Ofwat to ban the
payment of bonuses to water company executives whose companies
are discharging significant levels of raw sewage into the UK’s
seas and waterways; and further calls on the Secretary of State
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to make a statement to
this House by 31 January 2024 on the Government’s progress in
implementing this ban.
|
