Emma Hardy MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Sept 2026 · Water Sector: Public Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  We are looking at all of the sector and what can be done right across it. The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear, in all the comments he has made, that, in his words, the current water sector is “a leaking monument” to a system that prioritises private over public. He has used similar words on a number of occasions. I completely understand why people are asking fundamental questions about ownership. For too long, pollution, poor performance and financial instability in the water industry have left customers and communities to pay the price. Infrastructure is crumbling, as we see with water outages. Lots of hon. Members mentioned national security, water and resilience. How can we meet the changing climate when we have a system that is so ineffective? I want to move towards a better system, in which we are thinking about the management of water in a catchment—about water, flooding, wetlands and nature, and how we can do all that together. To do that, we need significant reform to give people and places greater control and to make the industry work for them again. Believe it or not—I know that nobody here would question it—there are some who question whether climate change is real. It is real, everyone. Just remember what it was like in summer. Our water industry must be fit for climate change of the future, delivering clean waterways, reliable services and fair and predictable bills. Whatever the ownership model, we face a challenge around ageing infrastructure. We need major investment. The provision of basic services and the prevention of sewage spills is a fundamental requirement of the sector. Some 30 years of privatisation has not left the system in a good state, and that is probably an understatement. I want to create a system that protects customers, improves the environment and secures reliable water services for the future. There is no single easy fix, but the Prime Minister has been very clear that the failures of the past cannot continue. We will look at all possible solutions for the water industry and bring forward reforms to make the sector work for people and places again. As the Prime Minister has said, later in the year our 10-year plan for Britain will set out plans for stronger public control over essentials such as water. I will not pretend that there is one simple answer to the problems facing the sector, but what is not in question is the need for significant reform. That means tougher regulation, which we have started to see through the increased inspections by the Environment Agency, the court cases coming through and the fines it is starting to issue. We have that tougher regulation, but we still need greater enforcement, greater financial resilience and absolutely a stronger voice for customers and communities. Many hon. Members talked about democratic voice, which I agree is missing from the water sector. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and I had a quick conversation about how we need to bring people’s voices and that accountability back into place. I know that the Prime Minister is completely committed to looking at devolution and at how organisations can be responsive and answerable to place. Bathing water sites are prioritised for upgrades. The hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) is no longer in her place, but I know that she and I share a love of pre-pipe solutions, which is looking at nature, wetlands and how we can create spaces for water to go to prevent it from entering the system. On looking at assets, we have introduced MOT tests, which has uncovered more problems. When people first go in to inspect, they will identify different problems, and we are seeing that. I want to pick up on a point made by one hon. Member—I apologise; I did not write down their name—about the trade unions and the workers. We can never forget that the workers on the frontline are not responsible for the failures of the water companies. I have absolute respect for them. I meet with the trade unions on a regular basis, and one thing they mention is the abuse that workers get when they are out working. They are not responsible—in fact, I would say that the workers out there on the frontline are the ones holding these companies together. I pay wholehearted tribute to the trade unionists and workers in all those water companies, who are doing a great job in incredibly difficult situations. I completely agree that the system is not fair at the moment. We need to look at rain water management. England’s drinking water is world-leading. There are many things where we can say there is failure, but our drinking water quality is incredibly high. On referendums, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) mentioned that he was scarred by a previous referendum, the result of which I still feel deeply myself. But I think we know what the public think about this sector. The Prime Minister has been clear that the Government’s priorities must be the public’s priorities. People want more ownership and control over the things that matter most to them. Public trust in the sector has been damaged by pollution, financial difficulties at some companies and a failure to invest sufficiently in infrastructure. Channel 4’s “Dirty Business” further highlighted the public concern about sewage pollution, shining a light on issues that matter to communities. Public interest should be at the heart of how our critical services operate. For decades, the essential services that underpin daily life, including water, have suffered from over-privatisation, leading to high costs to the public. The Government are clear that the public have a right to expect those services to be affordable and accountable. We have established a public control taskforce that will rewire the state, examining how public control across sectors, including water, can be utilised to return them to public service and bring down costs for families. That ambition is reflected in the reforms we are already taking forward: strengthening accountability, improving performance, giving customers and communities a stronger voice, and ensuring that the water sector works in the public interest. We know that bold action is needed, and that is why we are fundamentally reforming the water sector. I conclude by thanking the campaigners, the 208,000 people and everyone involved in working together on this issue. I hope we can all unite and push forward together to build the water system that we need for our communities, for our environment and for our public health.

• 14 Sept 2026 · Water Sector: Public Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I offer my sympathy to the Prime Minister on the loss of his father. Losing a parent hurts, whatever age you are. I thank my hon. Friends and other hon. Members for being so kind when I lost my own dad earlier in the year. Thanks, everybody. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for securing this important debate. He cares deeply about this issue, as do so many members of the public—many more, I imagine, than the 208,000 people who signed the petition. I pay tribute to all the citizen scientists, environmental groups, campaigners and Members of Parliament from across the House. I particularly mention Julie and Reuben; I hope I am not giving too much away when I say to Julie how deeply moved both I and the previous Secretary of State—my right hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds)—were after we met her, and how touched and privileged we felt to be presented with one of Heather’s shells as a reminder of the need to campaign on this. I promised her that we would focus much more on public health. We have generally lost that focus, and one of the key things in all the reforms we are trying to make is putting public health back at the heart of water. That is why we created the water system to begin with—for public health—and it should be focusing on that right now. All the failures that hon. Members mentioned—all the people who have become sick and the impact on places that people love—are outrageous. They talked about the places where they used to paddle but cannot now, and places they used to visit. It is horrific that we have ended up in this situation. I have always wanted to introduce a water Bill that meets the political moment and the public appetite for change. I am delighted that it feels that we are closer to that. The change in Prime Minister has opened up options that were previously not available; as I will mention, more things are suddenly on the table. I apologise in advance for being an irritating politician—we can quote that one—who is not going to give specific answers, but that is honestly because we are working through things right now. We are working through things across Government, and are looking to introduce a Bill that meets that appetite for change. Hon. Members have had many key messages. As the shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), mentioned, I would normally respond to everyone. I apologise that I am not going to do that, because too many spoke. However, I hope hon. Members recognise that I have been a very open Member of Parliament. We received a parliamentary question from an Opposition Member asking how many meetings Ministers have had with Back-Bench MPs. I have done 141.

• 10 Sept 2026 · Water Management · Hansard source

  More

  I am hesitant to agree to something that is not in my brief, but I will certainly mention that to the Farming Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan). The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is right that when we think about water management, we often talk about reservoirs; those are very much needed, and do matter, but so does managing water where it falls—thinking about roofs, streets, gardens, farms and developments. That is why we want a more practical, prevention-focused approach to water management that captures more water, wastes less of it and plans developments in a way that looks at local catchments.

• 10 Sept 2026 · Water Management · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for the expertise he brings to this House from his previous occupation. That is one of the things we are trying to work through with industry and MHCLG. We all agree that SUDS are a really good thing. Where they may not be as effective is the maintenance issue: who is responsible for maintaining them, and who pays for it? That is the kind of thing we are thinking about. This goes back to the point I made earlier. When it comes to planning, are we thinking about the management of water in an area? With our changing climate going from drought to flood, are we thinking about where we want the water? It is a slightly different, nuanced conversation to say, “When it floods, where do we want the water to go? When there is a drought, where are we going to get the water from?” That means thinking about it more holistically in a way that we have not done previously, when we thought about each point in isolation.

• 10 Sept 2026 · Water Management · Hansard source

  More

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

• 10 Sept 2026 · Water Management · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely; the more we can all do collectively, the better. We are coming up to Flood Action Week, beginning on 12 October, when I will be calling on every single Member in this House to do what they can to get the message out to their constituents about being prepared and how we can all collectively play our part in what could be quite a challenging winter. The national planning policy framework requires all new developments to incorporate SUDS designed and maintained in accordance with national standards. There are some new national standards, and the hierarchy within those standards prioritises collecting rainwater for non-potable uses. We are also committed to better joined-up water planning, with decisions on housing, drainage, water supply and waste water taken together, so that growth is supported in the right places and communities are better protected. In conclusion, I have really enjoyed this debate and talking about some of my favourite things: natural flood management, SUDS, rainwater and water management in a catchment—it has ticked all my favourite boxes. Managing rainwater where it falls is practical, local and important. It can help households to use less mains water, reduce pressure on sewerage, improve drainage, support flood resilience and make new developments more sustainable. That is why this Government continue to support better management of rainwater. Our water system faces significant challenges, but this Government are taking action, cleaning up rivers, tackling pollution at source, holding water companies to account, improving resilience to flood and droughts, and securing investment needed for the future. Through reform, investment and stronger regulation, we are rebuilding public trust and creating a water system that works for people, the environment and our economy. Question put and agreed to.

• 10 Sept 2026 · Water Management · Hansard source

  More

  On the point about farm reservoirs, my hon. Friend is correct. Today I held a meeting of the national drought group, and we had a focus on agriculture and the impact that drought has had on farmers. We are talking now about potential rain, El Niño and flooding, but drought is still here in this country. One of the conversations we had was, how can we support farmers to hold more of the water that comes down from the sky? We are focusing a lot on funding farm reservoirs, but we also need to think about filling farm reservoirs. How can farmers get them full for the summer, which we need, given our changing climate, with more rain in winter and drier summers? I love SUDS—I get very geekily excited about sustainable drainage systems. I know I am shocking you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will try to convince you that they can be really nice, and they can be spaces for nature as well. I am not winning, am I?

• 10 Sept 2026 · Water Management · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend; I was trying remember what the report was, so I very much appreciate the intervention. She is absolutely right. We have some of the best drinking water in the whole world; we have incredibly high standards for the health of our drinking water. The report by the Drinking Water Inspectorate looks at how we can do this in a safe way, and I am keen to explore that. We are going to be short of drinking water if we continue at this scale in the future. Thinking about where we are using it, rather than using it to flush our toilets, feels like a way forward. There is a huge amount of cross-party thinking on how we can do that. This comes back to the topic of how we manage water. How do we think about water? Where is it falling?

• 10 Sept 2026 · Water Management · Hansard source

  More

  I genuinely thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing the debate. I really enjoyed listening to his speech. There was so much agreement from the Government side of the House on pretty much everything he said. He described what I would refer to as “pre-pipe”, which I am really interested in. It is about, exactly as he described, looking at how we stop rainwater ending up in our sewerage system and often contributing to pollution incidents—the system becomes overwhelmed —when, as it is rainwater, it could be elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman touches on one of my favourite things to talk about: nature-based solutions—how we can use nature more, create soakaway areas and create sustainable urban drainage. That is absolutely correct. I am passionate about thinking about how we manage water. We often talk about how to solve problems around pollution, but if we better manage rainwater that falls from the sky, we can help to deal with pollution, as well as many other things. Reservoirs are hugely important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) pointed out, and we should absolutely be using them, but they are part of the wider system—collecting the rainfall and putting it where we want it, rather than it ending up where we do not. It is obviously for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to talk about building standards, but I can tell the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, because I asked MHCLG ahead of this debate, that it is reviewing water efficiency standards in the building regulations for new homes, and considering how to enable water reuse systems, including rainwater and grey-water systems, where those are safe, practical and cost effective. I have mentioned this issue a few times, and I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern—“astonishment” may be going a bit too far—that we use drinking water to flush our toilets. To give the other side of the argument, which I have had played back to me, the rules mean that the water supplied to domestic properties has to be drinking water quality. I hope that I am not telling the House things I should not, but we are exploring how we can guarantee that we do not mix up the water pipes that go into homes and therefore cause problems that way. This always has to be safety first. That is why the only water that can enter a property—unless a private individual has set up their own system—has to be drinking water quality.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Local Authorities: Aluminium Recycling · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. Our aim is for 65% of municipal waste to be recycled, and 67% of aluminium packaging. The hon. Lady mentions Novelis, which is the leading aluminium producer and recycler, and it has committed, as I think she was alluding to, £66.5 million to upgrading its aluminium recycling plant. One of the things we are hearing is that the changes we are making through the deposit return scheme—the higher-quality collection of aluminium because of the way the scheme works—mean that recyclers are looking to expand and do a lot more, which is fantastic because that is creating highly skilled jobs in those areas. I have already mentioned some of the other reforms: extended producer responsibility, simpler recycling and the deposit return scheme. Industry estimates that those three different reforms will underpin £10 billion of investment in recycling, with new sorting and processing facilities, and will create 25,000 jobs. Those are jobs here in the UK—UK jobs for people in this area—creating and supporting growth in every postcode, which is exactly what the Prime Minister is talking about. That is really quite exciting, and it is because of those three reforms introduced by this Government. Aluminium demonstrates exactly why the transition to a circular economy is not some academic theory, but something that matters to us all. Capturing that valuable resource gives us the opportunity to reduce waste, lower emissions and strengthen industrial supply chains. That is good for local authorities, manufacturers, economic growth and the reindustrialisation of this country. Bringing together stakeholders from the steel, aluminium and critical minerals sectors, the Government have created, under my predecessors, the metals circularity group to look at how we can create high-quality scrap, because that matters a lot as well. I thank the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills. It is great to kick the year off with something that we all agree on and that we are all pushing in the same direction on: how can we recycle more here in the UK? Our existing circular industry already delivers tens of billions of pounds in economic value and hundreds of thousands of jobs, but I know there is more potential that we can unlock. If we get it right, we can build something durable: a circular economy that turns yesterday’s rubbish into tomorrow’s raw material and delivers growth, resilience and jobs in every corner of this country—in fact, “growth in every postcode”, to borrow a phrase from the new Prime Minister. That is the outcome I am focusing on delivering for every council and corner of this country.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Local Authorities: Aluminium Recycling · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. We need to keep building on the reforms we have introduced and make things simpler and more transparent for everyone. I completely take the point that local people need faith. If someone is living near an aluminium recycling factory, they will be really incentivised to recycle all their aluminium. I will raise the point with the MHCLG Minister about how we can encourage councils to be more transparent. Before I move on to the next point, I want to address the points from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who raises a serious issue. It is great that recycling rates in his area are at 50%, which is really impressive, but I recognise the point he makes about how easily aluminium can be recycled and, if that material is collected, how quickly it can be recycled. DEFRA officials will meet and work with officials in Northern Ireland on the implementation of the deposit return scheme and see how we can support them to be as successful, if not more successful, than here on the mainland. Lots of Members raised concerns about exports and what we are doing about them. Legitimate exports of waste for recovery are permitted when they comply with domestic and international controls. Reprocessors and exporters must be accredited by the relevant regulator. Hon. Members have heard me mention the packaging waste recovery note reforms as well. Where the UK cannot recycle materials economically, exports help those materials to be recycled rather than sent to landfill or incineration, which is the worst of all worlds. The new fit and proper person test for operators, together with monthly reporting requirements, further strengthens oversight of that part of the market. However, I will say again that my personal feeling is that I would love to see more of it recycled here in the UK.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Local Authorities: Aluminium Recycling · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I welcome all hon. Members back to Westminster Hall; it is good to start with a debate where there is much agreement. I thank the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for securing the debate, and I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to the previous Minister for Nature at the Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh). She did so much to progress the reforms I will go on to mention, including the deposit return scheme, which is of clear relevance to today’s debate—it will play a vital role in increasing the capture of drinks containers, improve the quality of material collected for recycling, and reduce litter. I am a huge supporter of the deposit return scheme, and I will continue that work and her legacy. I recognise the long-standing interest of the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills in this issue. I was reading about how she has been collecting aluminium cans herself and using that for local charity, which is a brilliant idea and such a nice way to reduce litter in the local area and raise money for charity. We should think about the principle of such materials being viewed as valuable resources; I wholeheartedly agree with that. I also agree with the comments the hon. Lady made about fraud in the system. She will be aware that, only a couple of weeks ago, the Prime Minister made a big announcement about cracking down more on waste crime. I went to visit Kidlington, which looks a heck of a lot better than it did previously and is nicely cleared up. The hon. Lady is therefore right to talk about fraud and how we can increase transparency in the system by looking at registration. There was a consultation on reforming the packaging waste recycling note system earlier in the year, which is looking at changes to address the issues she mentions. It seems to me that there are two issues when it comes to recycling. One is how we collect more of the things we should recycle, rather than putting them into landfill. The other, which I am particularly passionate about, is how we recycle more of those things here in the United Kingdom. We still have a throwaway culture in the UK, and we throw away so much stuff that can be reused and recycled. As has been highlighted, we should think about the huge value of what we put into our bins and send to our councils. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) mentioned the problems he has with his council not recognising the value of what it is throwing away. There are many reforms that we can make in government, but there is not much we can do about incompetence. Our recycling rate has stalled between 42% and 44% for years, apart from in Hull city council, where we recycle 51% of everything we collect. Considering the area, the demographic and the challenges we have—I could spend the whole debate talking about flats and recycling, but I will not—that is hugely important. I completely agree with the comments from hon. Members that every tonne of aluminium we do not recycle needs to be dug out of the ground somewhere and sent across the world somehow. It makes complete and utter sense to recycle more of what we have here in the UK. It is good not only for the environment but for industry; it is good for the Prime Minister’s ambition to reindustrialise our country, create jobs in different areas, bring back manufacturing and expand our manufacturing base. What is not to love about doing all those things? It is why I am quite passionate about this and so delighted to have it within my brief. The hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills asked about councils losing out through aluminium recycling. As she knows from all her in-depth research, they have different contracts and agreements. I can raise her point directly with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Minister to see what more can be done on transparency. From DEFRA’s point of view, we publish a monthly market overview so that councils can see what the market price of aluminium is, which is information that DEFRA has. I will have to speak to the MHCLG Minister about how they can encourage councils to share their information. From my point of view, they would surely want to do so to ensure that a neighbouring council is not getting a better deal.

• 15 Jul 2026 · Waste Management Sites · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I begin by apologising to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) and to the rest of the House for my late arrival to the debate. I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. She may have noticed that I am not the Minister for Nature, my hon. Friend for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), but I hope to do her justice in responding to this debate because I know how hard she has worked on this issue and how seriously she takes it. I thank hon. Members from across the House, who have made valuable points today. This debate reminds me why it is so important to deal properly with rubbish and why all Members of the House support bins, whether they are Counts or not—sorry for my throwaway comment. People rightly expect their community to be a safe, clean and pleasant place to live. They expect clean air, thriving natural spaces and confidence that waste is being managed responsibly. Most importantly, they expect environmental regulation and waste management to be working in the interests of local people. I absolutely agree, and so do the Government. I will quickly summarise some of the actions that the Government have taken, led by my hon. Friend the Minister for Nature, and the achievements of the waste crime action plan commitments. My hon. Friend has already reformed the carriers, brokers and dealers regime, which was debated in the House of Commons just last week. She introduced digital waste tracking, the legislation for which was debated on 16 June. In March, she published updated statutory guidance and a code of practice for local authorities on litter enforcement powers and how to use them. She has also published best practice guidance for local authorities on using their powers to seize vehicles related to fly-tipping. As well as that, the Minister has overseen the doubling of the Environment Agency’s waste crime enforcement budget, with an additional £45 million over the next three years. As my hon. Friends have rightly pointed out, it has been difficult for the Environment Agency to do its job given that it has faced 14 years of austerity and cuts, but it is now getting additional money to carry out its duties. The Environment Agency is building a new waste intelligence and analysis unit and has already started interviewing new staff for it. It has also secured access to key land registry data sets, allowing for quicker identification of the landowner when new illegal waste sites appear. Courts can use their powers in the Crime and Policing Act 2026 to put points on the driving licences of those guilty of fly-tipping. We will make fly-tippers clear up their own mess, and we will consult on how to make that commitment a reality. We have also started clearing up some of the worst illegal waste sites that blight communities up and down the country. We are moving quickly for the clear-up of the site at Bolton House Road in Wigan and installing fire and security mitigations. This is not time for reviews of waste; it is time for more action, and that is exactly what this Government are doing. In that context, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood for her tireless efforts in drawing attention to the Jameson Road landfill in her constituency. Her constituents made a fantastic choice at the last election in voting for a tireless champion for their community and someone who —I know this from experience—does not let an issue go once she gets on to it. When it comes to my hon. Friend, we know that we have to do exactly what we are told. As my hon. Friend set out, too many of her constituents have struggled with persistent odour complaints for far too long. Nobody should feel trapped in their homes, workplaces or schools because bad smells mean that they cannot go outside or even open their windows. We are obviously keeping a very close eye on sites such as Jameson Road, and we are using our regulatory powers through the Environment Agency to ensure that operators are held accountable for poor compliance. The Environment Agency has already served enforcement notices to mitigate the worst effects of the odour at Jameson Road. My hon. Friend knows that because, as she mentioned, she meets with the Environment Agency every week; she is doing a brilliant job of holding them to account. In May earlier this year, the Environment Agency varied the permit to restrict the site to accepting only low-risk waste such as soil, concrete and bricks. A regulatory notice is also in force, which requires the operator to remediate the site, including temporary covering and subsequent permanent capping works. Those measures, alongside enhanced inspections and expanded monitoring arrangements, are expected to lead to a reduction in the incident reports associated with the site. The Environment Agency will continue to maintain close regulatory oversight of the site and hold the operator to account—I know that my hon. Friend will, too—for delivering improvements that local communities rightly expect. The operator must continue to deliver the required improvements, and local communities should be confident that regulatory intervention will follow if standards are not met. Let me be clear: where compliance falls short at any waste site, the regulator is prepared to take further action as necessary, and it will work closely with the Government to ensure that communities are protected from serious harm. I recognise that many other hon. Members in attendance today have poorly performing waste sites in their constituencies, and I will do my absolute best to answer as many questions as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) raised concerns about what is happening at the landfill in her area. As she will know, we already have the extra £45 million, which should help in her area. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) and I have had a meeting about the flies; flies were also mentioned by a couple other people. It is awful when we see a huge swarm of them, and they can enter people’s homes. We have had a number of meetings about the issue and we are staying in close contact. To answer another of my hon. Friend’s questions, I should say that our analysis is that the Environment Agency needs better enforcement powers, which is why we have committed in the waste crime action plan to give more powers to the EA as a priority for the teams. It is also why we are giving an extra £45 million, as has already been mentioned. I have to pay tribute to the campaigning of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee). He has not missed an opportunity in the voting Lobby or when seeing me around Parliament to raise what is happening in Walleys Quarry. The latest information I have for him is that, following the operator’s liquidation, the Environment Agency is managing the site to prevent pollution risks. Work is focused on site stability, maintaining capping, managing leachate and developing longer-term engineering solutions. Although the odour reports remain very low, the Environment Agency is continuing to monitor the site to see if there is any increase in the odour. I know that my hon. Friend is on the case and will mention it to me if anything changes there. The hon. Members for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) and for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) mentioned the Lower Compton landfill site. The latest I can tell them about that site is that permanent capping of the operational area has been completed, and new gas infrastructure is due to be installed. The monitoring identified occasional exceedances of odour annoyance guidelines, but no exceedance of the World Health Organisation’s human health guidelines. The waste permits specify acceptance controls, and those can include sampling and testing. Let me see who else I have on my list: to respond to the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane), I should say that the site she mentioned has had 30 fires since reopening in February 2025. I believe most of those to be due to arson, and most to be outside the site. The Environment Agency is working closely with the operator and other partners on investigating the fires on the site. I turn to what my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) said. The Government committed in our manifesto to moving the UK towards a circular economy. We will be publishing our circular economy growth plan soon. On the Pilsworth site in my hon. Friend’s constituency, the Environment Agency continues to closely monitor odour issues, which remain below World Health Organisation levels of concern, although that is not sufficient to reassure my hon. Friend’s constituents. That is why we are investing in the EA, with new enforcement powers and new funding. I absolutely champion the local constituents whom my hon. Friend mentioned, who have come together to campaign on this issue. I reassure them and her that they absolutely have a voice with this Government. We are listening to them and taking them seriously. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi). We know each other from previous campaigns together, so I know what a brilliant campaigner she is. I am pleased that some mitigations have been made and that things are starting to show improvements. I support her call for more joined-up work across the different agencies. If I can support her in helping to get that joined-up work, I absolutely will.

• 15 Jul 2026 · Waste Management Sites · Hansard source

  More

  I am conscious that I am speaking outside my brief in responding to this debate, but I will ensure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Nature hears the hon. Member’s comment and gets back to him with her thoughts on that one. I do not want to miss anyone out. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) raised the work that the Environment Agency is doing and—again—the problems that people have with flies. I totally agree with her point about putting people before profit—it should never be the other way round. A land remediation pathfinder scheme is launching this autumn, and support is available for local authorities’ work if needed. That will fund additional local authority resources, so additional money is coming in for some local authorities. I want to give my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood time to respond, so I will speed up. I say to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that although waste policy is devolved and the Northern Irish circumstances are unique, we enjoy a strong relationship with our colleagues in Northern Ireland. We are soon to commission new research on the drivers and regulatory factors underpinning waste crime, and are actively working with Northern Ireland colleagues on the design of that research. I hope I have responded to most of the comments made by hon. Members. I know that they will continue to speak to my hon. Friend the Minister for Nature where necessary and make sure that the issue continues to be a priority for her and the rest of the Government. Just in case this is my last time addressing everyone in this role, Dr Murrison, can I say thank you to my wonderful officials? Thank you to all the team I have worked with; it has been an absolute pleasure. Hopefully I will be back in the new term, but we never know. For the moment, over and out.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Future of Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  This is the thing with the hon. Gentleman: he makes many assertions in this House when he stands up to comment, but then he refuses to allow me to address and answer them. I am still answering his point about the ultimate controller. If he wants to ask me a question, he should have the decency and respect to listen to the answer. I am also reassured that Ofwat will continue to keep the position of Thames Water’s ultimate controllers under review, and that it has made clear to the company its expectation that the company will continue to monitor whether there is, or may be, a change to the ultimate controller position. I hope that what I have said has introduced a few facts to what can otherwise be quite an inflamed conversation. This Government are serious about tackling water company failure, acting on behalf of customers and protecting the environment. We have demonstrated this with the action we took on our very first day in office, and the action we have taken every day since. I am always happy to discuss issues related to special administration. I have held a private briefing with the hon. Member for Witney before. I would do so again, but what I do not like is when things are presented to the House in a way that is—I am not allowed to say dishonest, so how can I put this?—incorrect. This Government will always act in the national interest, and while the company is stable, we stand ready for all eventualities, including being ready to apply for a special administration regime if necessary. Question put and agreed to.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Future of Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  Quite clearly, some of the behaviour that we have seen in the past from water companies shows that the regulatory system did not work, and that is exactly why we are changing it. Of course, between Blair and the current Government there were 14 years of Tory Government and five years of coalition Government during which those Governments could have taken the actions that we are taking today. On 16 June, the Secretary of State gave her preliminary views on the consortium’s proposal to Ofwat, with reference to section 2 duties of the Water Industry Act 1991. She was clear that she does not believe that the current proposal goes far enough to protect customers and the environment. She cited three particular concerns in line with her duties: unfair costs to customers, delays to infrastructure investment and delays to environmental improvements. However, the decision on how to assess the proposal and whether to proceed with consultation ultimately rests with Ofwat as the independent regulator. It is therefore important that the Government respect those boundaries. While the Secretary of State may express views in accordance with her statutory duties, it would not be appropriate for the Government to direct Ofwat’s decision making, prejudge the outcome of its assessment or be seen to exert undue influence on an independent regulatory process. We are working closely with Ofwat, which will engage with the consortium on any revised proposal. It is important to be clear that it is ultimately a matter for Ofwat to decide whether to consult on the consortium’s proposal. However, I reassure the House that while the company is stable, we stand ready for all eventualities and the Secretary of State takes her duties very seriously. I will also use this debate as an opportunity to address some of the misconceptions that have developed about special administration. Too often, SAR is presented as a simple lever that the Government can pull whenever there are concerns about a water company’s performance, but that is simply not the case. The reality is that there is a high bar for the imposition of a special administration regime. A company can enter into a SAR only if it becomes insolvent, or if there has been such a serious breach of its principal statutory duties or an enforcement order that it is no longer appropriate for the company to retain its licence. Where performance is concerned, any application for a special administration regime would have to be supported by a robust and compelling body of evidence and would ultimately need to satisfy the courts. Bringing a case forward without sufficient evidence would not only risk the failure of that case, but waste a huge amount of taxpayers’ money. For any case brought forward, the Government and Ofwat would need to be convinced that there was a robust and compelling body of evidence. That is quite different from what is presented out there too often—that this is just a button the Government can press at will.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Future of Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  As I have just said, on the issue of performance, cases have to be brought forward to court, and the court must be convinced that the company is not performing—I will move on to insolvency. This issue is why regulators start by using the full range of supervisory and enforcement powers available to them where appropriate. Companies must be held to account, put forward credible plans to improve and deliver for customers on the environment. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why we are introducing a new performance improvement regime through the clean water Bill. The performance improvement regime will help to prevent poorly performing companies from falling into a cycle of decline, allowing regulators to step in before a company approaches the point of failure. It will strengthen accountability, support improvements in performance and provide a clearer pathway for intervention long before special administration may be required. Let me address another misconception about special administration. Some suggest that placing a company into special administration would simply allow the Government to take over and run the company directly. That is not how the regime works. A special administrator is appointed by a court and has specific legal duties and objectives. It must manage the company’s affairs, businesses and property for the statutory purposes set out in the Water Industry Act. The special administrator’s primary responsibility is to ensure the continued delivery of essential water and waste water services while securing a long-term solution for the business. Depending on the circumstances, that could mean rescuing the company, such as through a restructuring, or transferring it as a going concern to new owners. That is why the special administration regime exists to protect customers and maintain vital public services while providing a framework for recovery or transfer. Customers continue to receive their services throughout the process, and the special administrator operates under the supervision of the court and within a clear legal framework. I know the hon. Member for Witney is particularly concerned about whether the consortium meets the criteria of acting as the ultimate controller of Thames Water. Let me use this opportunity to address his concerns. The classification of ultimate controller is a matter for Ofwat, as the independent economic regulator, by reference to the terms of the company’s licence. Ofwat has given a detailed explanation of why it does not consider the creditors to be the ultimate controllers of the company in its letter to the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), dated 8 September 2025. Ofwat has stated that one of the reasons why it does not believe creditors are in a position to materially influence the company’s policies or affairs is that it does not have the right to appoint directors to the board, and it does not hold any governance or veto rights over the Thames Water business plan or other strategic decisions that the company’s board is making. I am reassured that it has reviewed the matter and that the ultimate controller of the company has not changed—

• 14 Jul 2026 · Future of Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  I have heard quite a lot from the hon. Gentleman, so I would be most grateful if he would not mind giving someone else a chance. We are looking at introducing the performance regime for the same reason, because we want to ensure that we can intervene early to stop the abject failure that we saw under the coalition Government.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Future of Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  It is true that I feel angry on behalf of all our constituents who have been so badly let down by the system that we inherited, and that is exactly why we have taken the action that we have. There is, of course, lots more to do—nobody is saying there is not—but we have to acknowledge the dire straits and the mess that we inherited. We are going to bring forward a clean water Bill to deliver on our promise to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas, and not just for today but for generations to come. The reforms will create a single powerful water regulator to act, and we will ensure that it has teeth in the way that the current regulator does not. Turning to some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Witney about the consortiums proposal, regarding the recapitalisation proposal being negotiated between Thames Water, London & Valley Water Consortium—a group of Thames Water’s creditors—and Ofwat, I reiterate that this Government will always act in the national interest. Before I turn to the proposal itself, it is important to be clear about the respective roles and responsibilities of the parties involved, because there is so much misinformation and misunderstanding out there. I welcome the opportunity to at least introduce a few more facts into the argument about the proposals. Ofwat, as the independent economic regulator, is responsible for assessing that proposal and deciding whether it meets the relevant regulatory and statutory requirements, including whether it is appropriate to take the proposal forward for consultation. However, section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991 places a duty on both Ofwat and the Secretary of State to exercise their respective relevant functions in the manner best calculated to further or achieve certain objectives. This includes protecting customers, securing the proper delivery of water and sewerage services, ensuring that companies can finance those services and that statutory obligations are properly carried out.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Future of Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is quite right to point out how self-monitoring, which was introduced by the coalition Government, was such an utter mistake that has done so much damage to the water industry. It is why we are in the current situation. The purpose of the supervisory regime is to be able to intervene earlier, and it works alongside the performance improvement regime so that we can hold companies to account. That is why we are abolishing Ofwat—

• 14 Jul 2026 · Future of Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for inviting me to respond to his concerns about the future of Thames Water. I have listened with his interest to his comments, and I hope I will be able to add some facts to the debate. I also accept his sympathy and anger on behalf of his constituents. Indeed, they must feel very angry about the fact that water was left in such a state, and that the Environment Agency’s budget was cut by half by the coalition Government, who also introduced self-monitoring. The Environment Agency was unable to fulfil its duties during the time of the coalition Government, and the regulators did not put forward forceful accountability for the water companies. It was left to this Labour Government to clear up the mess left by the coalition Government and 14 years of the Conservatives. I am sure the hon. Gentleman shares my anger about that—I certainly felt angry about it when I came into government and saw the mess that we had been left to clear up. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman exactly what we have done. We introduced the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 within six weeks of entering government, to raise standards, enforce accountability, and make pollution cover-ups a criminal offence. We banned more than £4 million in bonuses, and unlocked money in private investment to rebuild vital infrastructure. Just last week we introduced automatic penalties. There is more I could mention, including 10,000 water inspections, which is many more than happened after the slash and burn of funding for the Environment Agency by the coalition Government. We have restored to the system the accountability that has been missing for so long.

• 9 Jul 2026 · River Wye: Pollution · Hansard source

  More

  As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes), we are working with the EA to explore all the available options, which includes a water protection zone. It is an incredibly important issue, and I know how much the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) cares about it —I recognise that the Wye is a beautiful river. We have the £1 million research project, which is working directly with farmers and land managers. The EA has already conducted 1,246 farm inspections and issued 1,183 improvement actions around the River Wye since 2022.

• 9 Jul 2026 · River Wye: Pollution · Hansard source

  More

  The level of pollution in the River Wye is unacceptable and we are working to accelerate progress to tackle it, including by funding a £1 million research programme to identify sources of pollution and develop practical solutions to improve water quality. We are also rolling out early pilots of regional planning, which involved a workshop with stakeholders in the Severn region on 15 May.

• 9 Jul 2026 · River Wye: Pollution · Hansard source

  More

  I recognise all the important work that my hon. Friend has put into this important campaign, and how much she cares about protecting this beautiful river. We will continue to work with the Environment Agency to explore all the available options, which include, of course, a water protection zone. Any designation must be evidence-led and targeted to ensure that the right measures are in place to tackle pollution effectively and to deliver lasting improvements to water quality.

• 9 Jul 2026 · River Pollution · Hansard source

  More

  This Government inherited record levels of river pollution. We have already passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, making pollution cover-ups a criminal offence; more than doubled the number of Environment Agency inspections to 10,000 a year; and, only yesterday, introduced automatic fines for polluting water companies. Our clean water Bill will stop water companies marking their own homework and deliver better outcomes for consumers and the environment.