PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Water Companies - 8 June 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if she will make a statement on the performance of the water sector.

I welcome this opportunity to update the House on the progress the Government have made on this important issue. In these divisive times, there are few topics that unite all of us in this House—but water does. We all agree that the status quo cannot continue. Following 14 years of Conservative failure, this Labour Government are turning it around, but there is still lots more to do.

I have been grateful to meet with many passionate campaigners and Members of this House. Recently, that included an engaging meeting with my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) and for Shipley (Anna Dixon). Just last week I met with campaigners from Save Windermere and academics from the People’s Commission on the Water Sector.

People are right to be angry about the problems facing the water industry. Customers have been let down by rising bills, under-investment in creaking infrastructure, supply interruptions and unacceptable levels of pollution in our rivers, lakes and seas.

That is why this Government took action on day one by updating the water companies’ articles of association—the foundational legal documents that outline their internal rules and purpose—to put customers and the environment at their heart. We also established powerful consumer panels to give customers a voice. In week six of this Government, we introduced fundamental reforms through the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, ringfencing customers’ money, banning unfair bonuses, introducing criminal liability for polluting water bosses and creating automatic penalties for wrongdoing. Within a year in office, this Government had changed the guaranteed standards of service, doubling compensation for customers when things go wrong. Following that, we gave the Environment Agency more money and more power to monitor water companies, enabling it to deliver a record 10,000 inspections. After that, we strengthened protections for vulnerable households by changing the reforms around WaterSure to ensure that vulnerable people did not face excessive bills.

No one solution is going to fix the whole water industry. Since I have had the honour and privilege of being in this position, my focus has been on finding the quickest and most effective way to deal with each of those structural challenges. That is exactly why this Government are delivering the once-in-a-generation reform through our clean water Bill to reset the water sector and end the cycle of decline. And because the Government believe in experts, we have also supported the chief medical officer in bringing together a wider expert panel through the public health water taskforce, providing independent and technical advice on risks, alongside the fantastic work done by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ own scientific adviser, creating the science advisory council to look at what we can do around water.

We will deliver on our promise to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas not just today, but for generations to come. These changes are designed to address the structural challenges in the sector and to deliver a cleaner, more resilient and more accountable water system for the future.

I thank the Minister both for her response and for putting up with me—I am a bit of a broken record on this issue. We are all well aware that water is essential to life itself—to food, industry, nature, housing, energy, and now even the data centres powering the supposed AI revolution—and yet we have handed a monopoly where no competition is possible to companies, many owned overseas, whose overriding priority is profit. The result is systemic failure, with not one major reservoir built and the old ones sold off. That is why we were back in the Chamber last week over South East Water and the drought outages, just weeks into the summer.

Raw sewage has poured into our rivers and seas—3.5 million hours of it in 2024 alone—fouling beaches where children swim. It is why eight-year-old Heather Preen died after contracting E. coli from raw sewage, and why thousands of our constituents are made sick every year. When public anger saw the Government ban bonuses, water execs raised their salaries and rebranded the payouts “retention payments” and that comes on top of the £78 billion to shareholders and £60 billion borrowed, our bills up 40%, and 30p in every pound we pay servicing water companies’ debts instead of fixing pipes.

This was never a market failure. Instead, it is the market working as designed—profits out, sewage in, cost of living up and security of supply decimated. Surely the Minister understands that we can no more regulate privatised water companies than regulate the tide. How many more failures, inquiries and deaths before the Government accept that these problems are systemic and give the public the option of taking their water back?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is right that he has been passionate about this matter for a long time. We have known each other a very long time, and—I have said this to him before—I genuinely admire and respect his passion. I know what it means to him. In fact, he was the person responsible for bringing Julie, Heather’s mum, to meet me when they came to Parliament for a premiere of “Dirty Business”, which I found really moving.

My hon. Friend knows I am going to agree with him on reservoirs. It is shameful that we have not had one built. Our climate is changing: we are facing drought in the summer and we have too much rain in the winter, and yet we cannot seem to hold it. That is a fundamental failure.

He knows my thoughts on South East Water, too, as well as my feelings about competition, which is why I think we should be introducing more new appointments and variations. As I said last week, where a water company might want to transition to a new ownership model such as not for profit, we are committed to developing a transparent process to look at whether that request should go ahead—a process that has never existed before.

Labour came into government promising major reform of England’s water sector, but progress so far has been slow. The Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 was largely a rebadging of many Conservative reforms. During its passage, we tabled many sensible amendments, including ones to ringfence funding from enforcement fines to a bespoke water restoration fund; to guarantee that companies fixed the environmental damage they caused locally; to require Ofwat to create rules on financial reporting in its remuneration and governance rules; to reduce consumer bills if companies were hit with enforcement fines; and to ensure that companies did not leverage too much debt. Sadly, the Government failed to support those amendments and missed the opportunity to increase accountability.

We on the Conservative Benches have been clear: no one wants to see water companies such as Thames Water collapse. Although water supply would continue, failure would expose taxpayers to billions of pounds of liabilities and drive customer water bills sharply upwards, without addressing the underlying issues. Yet we have seen the third party in this place lead legal action that could have pushed Thames Water to the brink, and both they and Reform appear relaxed about the consequences for consumers and the public purse. Government have to be prepared to step in if a company fails, but that should be a last resort, so can the Minister update the House on the current situation at Thames Water?

Last week, this House again debated further unacceptable water outages from South East Water. With further hot weather expected, what action are the Government taking to ensure that water supplies are not disrupted again and that people, businesses, schools, hospitals and livestock owners will have sufficient water? Turning to the wider systemic issues in the water sector, can the Minister update the House on progress towards delivering new reservoirs and other strategic water infrastructure? Finally, can the Minister explain how the Government are tracking investment commitments across the sector?

I think the shadow spokesperson managed to read his statement out without actually listening to the answer that I have given. But I am always keen to update everybody on the action we have already taken, so just in case he missed it, I am happy to say it again. We have passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025; ringfenced customers’ money so that it cannot be diverted away from investments; secured £104 billion of private investment to upgrade our infrastructure; given the EA more powers to monitor water companies; banned unfair bonuses; introduced criminal liability for water bosses; introduced automatic penalties; reduced the burden of proof for many offences so that regulators are on the front foot; introduced cost recovery to shift the cost of pollution on to those who pollute; banned the sale and supply of wet wipes; reformed our bathing water regulations; established the water delivery taskforce; more than doubled compensation for customers when things go wrong; and introduced strengthened protections for vulnerable households through reforms to the WaterSure scheme. In fact, I would say that we have done more in 20 months than the hon. Gentleman’s Government did in 14 years.

I call the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee.

My hon. Friend the Minister is absolutely right to say that we are united by our anger about the systemic failures in the water industry, in terms of both financial and environmental regulation, and the under-investment in infrastructure over a long period—although the fact that Welsh Water, a not-for-profit water company, is also a poor performer when it comes to the environment shows that it is simplistic to say that profit is the only issue here.

The Government have rightly addressed one of the issues—the amount of investment going in—but we need to see results from higher bills, and we also need to see regulatory reform as soon as possible. Will the water Bill tackle the environmental failures and also put in place a regime that prevents the kind of appalling indebtedness that we saw with Thames Water, and the industry more generally, and the prioritisation of those debts ahead of delivering for customers?

I thank my hon. Friend for his work as Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. He is right to highlight the under-investment in infrastructure. In fact, some of the problems around resilience are, quite frankly, due to the under-investment in infrastructure, which is why we need to set resilience standards. He is also right that we need to see action resulting from higher bills, which is why we formed the water delivery taskforce to hold the water companies to account for the promises they have made on delivering infrastructure.

On the point about having an integrated regulator, at the moment Ofwat looks at things financially, the Environment Agency looks at the environment and the Drinking Water Inspectorate looks at drinking water. By abolishing that and bringing the regulator into one, we will have an integrated regulator that places the environment, customers and—what has been missing for the last 14 years—public health at its heart, which is incredibly important. Finally, I agree with him about debt levels; that was one of the things in the Sir Jon Cunliffe commission.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Thames Water, which serves my constituency, embodies the systemic failures of the sector. The company is in breach of its licence conditions by not having held any investment grade credit ratings for nearly the last two years and by failing to inform Ofwat and the Government of the change of control at the company. The Government have stood by and let that happen. Now, their only plan is to hand the company over to the very same creditors who have pillaged, and continue to pillage, it. They must now change course, put Thames Water into special administration and bring it out as a business that is mutually owned and operated in the interests of its customers and the environment.

I find the shadow Minister’s words extraordinary—he comes across as a corporate shill. I have provided him with information from Thames Water’s own independent expert that demonstrates that the cost to the Government will be zero in the medium term, but he has not responded. Will the Government please now put the company into special administration?

I thank the hon. Member for his question, but I think it is a misrepresentation—I am sure it was an accident—to say that the Government are doing any kind of deals. The Government are working closely with Ofwat, which is evaluating the consortium’s proposals. Of course, the Government will always have the best interests of customers and the environment at heart. As I have said many times in the House, we stand ready for all eventualities, including applying for special administration if necessary.

In Hastings, Rye and the villages we have had sewage dumped in our sea, two major water outages—lasting five and nine days—Hastings town centre flooded and, last year, as the Minister knows, 300 million plastic beads washed up on our beaches all thanks to Southern Water. Its failures are making people sick, damaging local businesses and tarnishing our livelihood as a seaside economy. That is why so many of the people I represent are fed up with Southern Water, while having to pay more in their bills. They welcome the action that the Labour Government are taking to ramp up regulation, ban bonuses and much more, but they want to know what more can be done. The water White Paper, which she has brought forward, talks about the importance of ownership and opens the door to the Government looking at not-for-profit structures. Could she say a bit more about that?

I thank my hon. Friend, who continues to be a formidable, incredibly impressive campaigner, as she was through her work on the Environment, Food and Rural Committee; honestly, she has been amazing. We have set out our White Paper, and a transparent process will look at whether a new model will go ahead. As the Secretary of State has also said, I have always been in favour of mutuals, and I do not have a problem with not-for-profits, but we need a clear look at the process to see whether that would be in the best interests of customers before any change goes ahead.

Is not the root problem a profound failure of regulation over the last 25 years, for which Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems all bear responsibility? We have regulated for lower prices and more investment, but we have not stopped companies from loading up their balance sheets with debt, which means higher prices and less investment. I am not a believer in nationalisation, because I know from having been Chancellor that the state will never find the £104 billion now promised by the private sector, but if we are to stick with private companies, do we not need to regulate differently so that we have lower prices and more investment?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question—it still feels slightly odd to be on the opposite side of this, with him questioning me. I will gently say that, yes, I do accept the premise of his question—we need tougher and more effective regulation, because the regulation system has failed—but I would have thought that, as the second most powerful person in the previous Government, he might have had an opportunity to act himself.

We come to the Chamber almost weekly to highlight the failures of the water sector in our constituencies, but I want to highlight a wider point today. For years, economic policy in this country has been based on trying to achieve growth by unlocking private capital, often from abroad. In this essential sector, we are now seeing the end result: water bankruptcy, environmental devastation, non-existent infrastructure and the public left picking up the tab. What conversations is the Minister having with colleagues across Government, especially in the Treasury, about learning from this monumental failure?

I thank my hon. Friend for his passionate work on this issue. I know how much he cares about the damage that over-abstraction is doing to our environment and to nature. On the water delivery taskforce, we have Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers and Treasury representatives all looking at how we can make the fastest and most effective change to our water system. They look particularly at water infrastructure because, as has been highlighted already, one of the problems is that we have been unable to build the infrastructure we need, which is resulting in damage to the environment now.

Since Mr Speaker allowed me to ask an urgent question on Wednesday last week, to which the Minister helpfully responded, it will not surprise her to know that I have received quite a number of public comments concerning the performance of South East Water, most of which are not repeatable before the watershed.

Two issues clearly have come to light and struck a chord. First, it really is time that the water companies were allowed to act as consultees in planning applications, because we are building house after house after house without saying where the water is going to come from, and of course the water companies have a statutory duty to provide it. The second point that has come through loud and clear underscores something that the Minister said to me, which is that it really is time that every new house built had a grey water system, because we are pouring water that we cannot afford to waste literally down the drain.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for this question, and for his question last week as well. As I mentioned last week, the water delivery taskforce looks at planning. It is looking jointly with MHCLG and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at where we are building homes, whether we have the right water and what water infrastructure is needed. There has been some retrofitting of properties in Cambridge to make them more water efficient, but the right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point about the use of grey water. That is definitely on my agenda.

I thank the Minister for her statement. Tomorrow, I will be bringing Thames Water’s management into Parliament to answer a simple question: what improvements will my constituents get in return for the increases in their bills? My constituents do not feel they are being treated fairly by Thames Water, and that makes it even more important that Ofwat should reject the current deal proposed by Thames Water’s creditors to let it off the hook for polluting our rivers. Does my hon. Friend agree that fairness in the water sector means that the polluters and their investors have to be the ones who pay, not customers?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that it should be a matter of fundamental respect to Members on both sides of the House that water companies inform Members of what improvements they are making and where. Each and every one of us will have had emails from our constituents about water bills and concerns about rising prices. The least those companies can do is inform customers where the money is going. I admit that some are, but Thames Water has so far failed to supply my hon. Friend with the information she has requested. I do not think it is unreasonable for her to request it, and I repeat my point to Thames Water that if bills are going up, the least customers should know is what they are going up to pay for.

My constituents are disgusted by the sheer volume of sewage dumping that is happening across the River Tawe, the Usk and the Wye. Just two weeks ago, local children became ill after swimming in the Tawe, and the same happened last year in the Wye near Glasbury. Will the Minister listen to the Liberal Democrat calls to require water companies to publish the volume and concentration of sewage being discharged from emergency overflows?

This point came up repeatedly during the passage of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 and, fundamentally, my response remains the same, which is that the cost and time spent on installing monitors could be more effectively spent and used to prevent this from happening in the first place. That is why we want to focus on delivering the storm overflow reduction plan, which is looking to deliver £60 billion of investment across England by 2050 to reduce the number of overflows. Rather than trying to measure the problem, we are trying to tackle it.

Several barriers to taking water back into public ownership have been floated—pardon the pun—but the myth around the cost has been debunked and the impact on pensions has been dealt with by leading academics. What will it take for the Government to take water back into public ownership?

I know how much my hon. Friend cares about this issue, and she is right to highlight the concerns of some unions about changes. On nationalisation, as I have already mentioned, the White Paper contains a process by which different forms of ownership can be looked at, but—I do not wish to mislead my hon. Friend—that would involve looking at not-for-profits and mutuals rather than nationalisation.

I know you have had your own issues with water, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given the dire ongoing issue with flies in Chailey, water outages due to heat, cold and storms, and a lack of confidence in infrastructure and drought planning, does the Minister think it is acceptable that Southern Water and South East Water remain separate? Would proper joint working and firmer accountability through partnership be the answer for my constituents, who are struggling with higher bills?

I have huge sympathy for the hon. Lady’s constituents; I remember our discussion of the previous situation, in December and January, and the impact on them all. She is right that the companies should be working more effectively together, and I am keen to support them in sorting out a proper legal agreement over the bulk supply of water from Southern Water to South East Water. Fundamentally, they have a duty under the Water Industry Act 1991 to ensure a supply of water; if they fail to comply with that duty, action will be taken.

My constituents write to me constantly about the failings of Thames Water—bills going up, but pollution staying the same—and I am glad the Minister is taking a grip of the matter through the taskforce. It is World Oceans Day, and this morning I met several groups that are campaigning on and providing data about the impact of poor rivers on oceans. Can the Minister assure me that she is putting more effort into supporting the Environment Agency so that, as those organisations have suggested, it can better monitor the water and enforce the legislation we have passed?

Happy World Oceans Day, everybody—that is a good day to have. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, because for years she led the campaign to ban the supply and sale of plastic-containing wet wipes, which were a huge cause of pollution, and we passed that ban partly because of her work. She is right that river pollution leads to problems with the oceans, and as Minister for water, flooding and the oceans, I have an interest in making all that work.

For more than a decade my constituent Holly, of Ferry Road in Thames Ditton, has watched Thames Water clean up raw sewage from her street, only to be told that the system is not fit for purpose, with nothing ever being fixed. In last week’s heavy rain, human waste flooded two homes and spread to the local primary school. Thames Water’s proposed solution is to wash it straight back into the river, which is unacceptable. This comes on the back of higher bills. Is it not time that the Government put Thames Water on a sustainable footing under special administration, so that it can at last invest in infrastructure, and Holly’s nightmare can end?

The hon. Lady raises a shocking and awful case, and I am more than happy to meet her and look into it. There is no excuse for sewage ending up in primary schools or floating down the street. I am happy to take that up.

Thames Water, which serves my constituency, has had a chequered history—it has gone from bad to worse—and there has been sewage on the streets of Ilford too frequently. When is enough enough? When will we take back control from Thames Water?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, which provides yet another example of the current failure of the system. He is right to feel angry about it. As I have said, the Government are working closely with Ofwat in respect of Thames Water. We stand ready for every eventuality, including applying for special administration if necessary.

I would like to record my appreciation of the consistent campaign waged by the hon. and gallant Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), which included bringing the real-life activists on whom the “Dirty Business” docudrama series was based to the House of Commons where we could meet them. I noted what the Minister said in her reply to him about no new reservoirs being built. Does she think any new reservoirs could ever be built without direct Government intervention?

The right hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important point. One of the things we have been doing through the water delivery taskforce is looking at all the potential barriers in the way of just getting stuff done. That is why it is so important that we have MHCLG on the taskforce alongside DEFRA, because it is about the question not just of financing but of planning. Everybody seems to want reservoirs, but lots of people do not seem to want them to be built—that part of it seems to be the difficulty.

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. We have had to intervene more to look at where the blockages are, at the problems we come up against when we try to get something built, and at how we as the Government can remove some of them so that we can get on with it. We know the climate is changing—we know we are going to have wetter winters and drier summers—so this is becoming even more urgent.

The Minister knows that for decades shareholder returns have been prioritised over consumers, the environment and infrastructure investment, and when the companies ultimately fail, it is taxpayers who have to underwrite them. Given that all the empirical research shows that public ownership would lower financing costs and bills, improve accountability and pay for itself within seven years, why on earth are the Government still prepared to socialise the risks rather than bring water back into public ownership?

I thank my hon. Friend for the passion with which she speaks about this issue. I reiterate that my focus has always been on the quickest and most effective way I can deal with some of the problems in front of me. There are questions over how much nationalisation would cost—we have heard them before—and we know that the water companies have £82.7 billion of outstanding debt.

It is always difficult—again, this probably goes beyond my role and into that of the Treasury—to decide on priorities about what we spend money on, but that is not for one moment to give the impression that I am happy with the status quo or that I think the current situation is good, because I simply do not. It is about how we make the most effective change in the quickest way, which is why having set out in the White Paper a transparent process to look at not-for-profit mutuals and other different models is so important.

The suppressed report from DEFRA civil servants on critical systems beyond 2030 concludes with high confidence that without “transformational change” Britain’s water and food systems face a realistic risk of “catastrophic failure”. The report highlights that significant parts of the UK already face water scarcity, while high levels of industry debt and woefully inadequate infrastructure investment have undermined system resilience. Can the Minister assure the House that the water Bill will require companies to build long-term climate resilience into reservoir supply networks and waste water systems, so that communities are protected from the climate and water security challenges expected in the coming years and decades?

The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point, and the short answer is yes. We need clear resilience standards and asset standards, because we do not have them, but, importantly, as he pointed out, those standards need to be fit for the future and not just for today. When we look at what the standards should be, we should think about what will happen to the climate in years to come in terms of overheating and flooding. The hon. Gentleman is quite right: work on that is going on, and he raised an important point.

Minister, we know that our water company, Yorkshire Water, is a dirty business, flushing sewage into rivers such as the Wharfe and the Aire, with children and others getting ill from swimming in them. But is it not also a broken business, with debt more than four times its revenue, while still paying over £50 million to shareholders last year? What financial studies has the Minister done to look at Yorkshire Water’s viability? Is it not time that the people of Yorkshire have the same say over their water company as the people of Wales?

My hon. Friend is right that we share the same water company. Sir Jon Cunliffe’s commission addressed whether it would be appropriate for the Government to set a level of debt that companies cannot go beyond, because the gearing over the last decade or so has been completely unsustainable. It is making companies act in a way that I do not think is right. That is why the need to look at the debt levels for these companies was included in the White Paper. We need to look at what is a sensible and realistic level for them to hold, to ensure it does not undermine their sustainability or their ability to put customers and the environment first, which should be at the core of everything they do.

I know that the Minister is acutely aware of the terrible problems we have had with South East Water; we have discussed it recently. It cannot supply water in the winter because it is too cold. It cannot supply water in the summer because it is too hot. The chair and the chief executive have both stood down, but that is a necessary condition for the company to be transformed, not the transformation itself. Can the Minister give us any update she is aware of on how the recruitment process is going to appoint their successors and what role the regulator and the Department will play in that process?

The hon. Lady wrote to me about the specific difficulties her constituents have faced, and I have huge sympathy with them; that is not acceptable. The regulator will of course be taking a close interest because one issue that South East Water faces is that it is non-compliant with its licence because it was downgraded by Moody’s. Ofwat will be taking a very close interest in what happens with the company because it is not currently compliant. I, too, am very interested in what happens with this company. I have met the interim chair. She has been in post for only a few weeks and is trying to restore relations with Members of Parliament, so I am keen to know from them how that is going. Fundamentally, the hon. Lady is right and what she said was echoed in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: we need not just a change in leadership, but a change in culture and a fundamental change in leadership for that company.

Parents from my constituency who went to the south coast during the half-term week described how they would not let their children swim in the sea. These are not necessarily beaches that are deemed to be unsafe, but such is the loss of confidence in our water industry that they reacted in that way. There must come a time when we say that we cannot allow water companies to continue to perform in the way that they have consistently been performing, and there must be a way of separating off the debt from the responsibility for running the water companies so that we can take the responsibility of supplying water and leave those companies, who have done extremely well out of the industry, to pay off their own debts.

As summer comes, we all want to be enjoying our beaches, going for a swim, having a paddle and not having to think about checking an app to see whether they are polluted. My hon. Friend and his constituents are right to feel angry about the current situation. We have told companies that in delivering their storm overflow reduction plan, they must prioritise bathing waters and chalk streams to begin with so that we can make those as safe as possible. Our reforms to bathing waters will help clean them up more quickly, because we want everybody to go out and enjoy the great British seaside this summer.

I refer members to my registered interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for infant feeding and inequalities. With water scarcity prevalent across the south-east and poor management of water companies leading to outages across the south, will the Minister consult with her colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to find a route to put new mothers on to the priority services register automatically, because for formula-fed babies there is no option other than a clean water supply?

That is a hugely important issue. I have already begun to have some conversations, but those were about pregnant women, who obviously should be on the priority services register. There are concerns, as people can imagine, about data sharing and giving permission, but this is a really important point because pregnant women will fall in and out of being a priority, as will formula-fed babies. This is quite tricky because of the problems around sharing information, but it is on my agenda.

For over a decade, I have worked with campaigners in South Shields to stop sewage dumping in our sea. We are still waiting for Northumbrian Water’s compliance plan that was promised to us last year. The industry is broken. Introducing regulations and penalties and blocking bonuses is clearly not working. Will the Minister explain why, despite acting on rail, energy and other industries, the Government are not acting on the strong expert evidence and calls from the public and campaigners to nationalise the water industry?

My hon. Friend and her constituents have had a terrible time dealing with sewage pollution. I know from the meetings that we have had together with her constituents that it is not good enough that the promised plan was not delivered, and I will urgently follow up to find out what has happened with it. As I have mentioned, in the White Paper we have a transparent process to look at various not-for-profit models.

Southern Water is preparing to dump sewage on a beach in Bembridge, on the Isle of Wight, in a new location. The Environment Agency says that that is okay because there is an old combined sewer overflow pipe there, notwithstanding the fact that it has not been used in decades. Does the Minister agree that that is unacceptable? If she does, what assistance can she and her Government provide to stop this from happening?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I would be happy to look into it and get back to him. If he wants to have a meeting with me to discuss it further, we can make that arrangement.

I thank my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), for all his work on this issue to protect the environment and customers. My local supplier is United Utilities and I receive vast amounts of correspondence about its poor performance. To provide a couple of stats, 50.6 litres of water are lost per day per person in the United Utilities network through water leaks, which is the second highest after Thames Water, and in the past five years the average annual water bill for United Utilities customers has gone up approximately 51.6%, while private shareholders in the water industry tend to be doing quite well for themselves. May I urge the Minister to support public ownership of the water industry?

My hon. Friend cares about this issue and has raised it with me before. He is right to be angry about the issue of leakage, because water that people are paying for is ending up leaking and in the wrong places. We are tracking that leakage target through the water delivery taskforce. When we look at how we ensure that we have the water that we need for houses, growth, the environment and everything else, tackling leakage is one of the core things on which we can take action, and it is something I am committed to doing.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lefarydd. Local people are appalled that there were nearly 95,000 hours of sewage pollution in Dwyfor Meirionnydd last year, to the point where there are dedicated local groups in the constituency. I must mention Forum Llyn Padarn who stepped in to monitor water quality in the magnificent glacial lake in Llanberis, home of the rare Torgoch char. However, we cannot rely on citizen scientists to fix the system in its entirety. What update can the Minister give me on the UK Government’s White Paper plans to devolve further water powers to Wales, so that we have the means to establish a separate independent economic regulator, and further prioritise sustainable water management over commercial interests?

The right hon. Lady raises an important point, and that lake sounds very beautiful. Conversations are ongoing with the new devolved Government. She knows that the UK Government support devolution wherever we can. The new Welsh Government have only recently been elected, but I assure her that conversations are happening right now about how we will set things up so that Wales will have a separate regulator from England.

My constituents have been profoundly failed by Thames Water for many years, with frequent leaks and bursts, inadequate investment in our infrastructure, clogged up roads and, to add insult to injury, skyrocketing bills. Thames Water is a failing organisation. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will not accept a proposal to exempt Thames Water from fines for four years? It should be held to the same standards of accountability as the rest of the industry and if it fails, the Government should step in to place it in special administration, with a view to bringing it back under public control.

Again, my hon. Friend is a formidable campaigner on this issue; she has raised it with me on many occasions both in public and in private, and she is absolutely right to do so. Yes, the rules apply to everybody. The previous Secretary of State stood at the Dispatch Box and made that commitment, and I will make it again. Rules apply to everybody, and that has never changed and will never change under this Government. We are prepared and ready for every eventuality if that is needed.

South West Water has pleaded guilty to illegal sewage dumping across my constituency, including at Bodmin and Harlyn. It will likely get yet another fine and a slap on the wrist—a cost of doing business. The Water Minister kindly met me recently, but she has confirmed in writing that vital sewerage upgrades will not take place until 2030. If the Government will not push South West Water to speed up its investment plan, will the Minister support my efforts to hold it to account through a group action legal claim?

I understand why the hon. Gentleman feels frustrated about this issue. Each company will set out through the price review exactly what it will deliver and when, and make priorities. As I have already mentioned in the House, we are prioritising bathing waters, chalk streams and various other areas at the moment, but he is well within his rights as a Member of Parliament to campaign for his area to be moved up and be given greater priority.

Since 2003, my constituent has suffered multiple incidents every year of raw sewage flooding into his garden. United Utilities is disputing with him how the guaranteed standards scheme works, and he is not receiving adequate compensation. His golden wedding anniversary was completely ruined when he had family over and the garden was literally full of excrement. This situation could not be any worse—it is an absolute disgrace. Although we have strengthened the regulations, our current system is not sufficiently economically damaging to UU to force it to take actions that would solve the problem for my constituent. Will the Minister please meet with me and my constituent to talk to him about this issue?

I would, of course, be happy to meet with my hon. Friend.

The Minister will know from our conversations that sewage pollution is a regular problem in Exmouth and Exeter East. However, the Lib Dems on East Devon district council propose to build tens of thousands of new homes, and I do not have faith that South West Water will keep pace with all the new development. We have been bitten before: a new town was built in Cranbrook, and the corresponding sewage treatment network was never built. Will she work with me and the Housing Minister to ensure that we apply a magnifying glass to any plans and push back strongly if South West Water cannot keep pace with delivery?

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Where we are building homes, we need to ensure that they have not only an adequate water supply, but an adequate waste water supply. We are looking at that in the water delivery taskforce, and I am happy to look at the exact example that he has given.

Greedy privatised water companies have caused huge harm by treating our rivers and seas like an open sewer. They have been ripping off the public while doing that and, at the same time, they have handed nearly £90 billion over to shareholders since privatisation. Does the Minister agree that, as is being done with the railways, the water companies need to be taken into public ownership so that they can serve the public good and be run for the public good, not for private profit?

My hon. Friend is right to passionately defend customers and to be angry about the fact that money has been diverted and not used in the most effective way, which it should be. As I have mentioned, we are looking to set up a transparent process to look at various ownership models for water, such as a not-for-profit model.

Last week, South West Water was fined nearly £2 million after pleading guilty to supplying water unfit for human consumption in Brixham in my constituency in 2024. I do not believe that that fine does justice to the impact of the event; people became ill—some were hospitalised—and the economic impact was massive. Repeated fines, some of which are never paid, are not delivering the results that customers want to see. The Minister—a Minister in a Labour Government—says that the customer is the most important priority. Does she agree that it is time to change the ownership model of the water industry so that the customer is prioritised over profit made for overseas shareholders?

The hon. Lady is right to point out the record fine that was handed out for not having drinking water at an adequate standard, and I pay tribute to the Drinking Water Inspectorate and the work it has done—it does an incredible job of making sure our drinking water quality is among the best in the world. On ownership, the hon. Lady will have heard me say that we are looking at setting out a transparent process in the White Paper for water companies that wish to transition to a different model.

I commend the Minister for coming to the House today to outline the various measures that have been taken, but what this says to me is that the model is fundamentally broken. We need a new model, one that puts people before profits, because people should no longer accept that the public always pay the bills and the shareholder always takes the profit. The issue with water is that we have privatised the profit and nationalised the debt. Bearing that in mind, does the Minister agree that the change people want is a Government who take the right and radical approach and bring our water back into public ownership so that it serves the people, and to stop shareholders being paid a dividend for failure on what is a natural monopoly and a basic human right?

My hon. Friend is right to be angry at the service that many customers have faced for years, and at the broken model we have had for a very long time. We need a fundamental reset—we have already made a huge number of changes since coming into government, and we as the Labour party should be proud of all those changes. As I have mentioned, we are looking at a transparent process for whether requests to move to a new model should go ahead, but that is for models such as not-for-profit.

I have many criticisms of the operating practices of Thames Water, but further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), I am very concerned about the total dysfunctionality in how the planning system interacts with water companies. This is a problem now, even before Buckinghamshire is wrongly asked by this Government to build 95,000 homes. We have seen a lot of development in recent years—in the village of Ickford, for example, the wagon to pump sewage out and take it away by road has already become the norm. Does the Minister agree that if the Government are determined to build all these homes, water companies should get statutory consultee status for all planning applications? Otherwise, they are going to be chasing their tails rather than fixing the problems we already have.

This Government are determined to build the homes that people need. I am sure that every Member has met enough people who are living in overcrowded homes and are desperate to move somewhere else—I know I have. In fact, just on Friday, I was talking to a constituent who lived with his wife, their six-year-old daughter and their two-year-old son in a one-bedroom flat because no other alternatives were available. When we talk about objections to building homes, we never ask people living in overcrowded accommodation how they feel about the number of homes we want to build.

However, on the fundamental point of the planning system and the water companies, the hon. Member is right, and we are looking at that through the water delivery taskforce. As I have mentioned, it is important to make sure we have the water and waste water capacity to build the homes this country needs.

In 2025, there were over 300,000 sewage spills into our waterways up and down the country. In March this year, a section of the Stourbridge canal had to be closed due to raw sewage spilling into the water from a broken Severn Trent pipe, killing hundreds of fish. Does the Minister accept that the current model of privatised water companies is failing to protect our natural environment, and as sewage spillages continue, how will her Department measure success in that area? If there is no improvement, when do we say enough is enough?

My hon. Friend raises an important issue, and I remember hearing about that incident. That is why under this Government, the Environment Agency has carried out over 10,000 inspections of water companies; under the previous Government, the figure was only 4,000, so we have increased the number of inspections. We are also introducing MOT-style inspections so that when the Environment Agency goes into a water company, it can check all the infrastructure, see where the problems are and get the company to tackle them before another awful incident such as the one my hon. Friend has described occurs, where sewage ends up in the wrong place, causing damage to our environment.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that South East Water’s communication with customers was frankly not good enough, and nor was its communication with Members of Parliament. One thing we are trying to do through DEFRA is to support the work with the local resilience forum to look at how we can improve that communication, so that everybody knows what is happening and when. That way, we can work as a coherent unit, rather than having miscommunication between the different parties involved.

To repeat an answer I have already given, through the water delivery taskforce, we are looking at planning, water supply and waste water supply together when ensuring we build the homes our country needs. I say “our country”, but it is about building the homes that our people—families, adults and children—need. When we talk about house building, we forget about the number of people living in overcrowded accommodation. I am yet to have a conversation with somebody living in overcrowded accommodation who says no when I ask, “Would you like to live in a home rather than the overcrowded one-bedroom flat you are currently in?” Let us remain focused on the families who desperately need the homes we are building. As a responsible Government, we will build them in a way that does not put extra pressure on our water system.

I will raise with the Minister something that I have already raised with her in a letter about the impact of Anglian Water, another failing water company. There was no water on the hottest day of the year for families in Woburn Sands and the Brickhills. That is a disgrace. Around the same time, there was a lack of water pressure, and the fire and rescue service in Milton Keynes had to bring in water to fight a fire. Does the Minister agree that each and every one of these companies has a story of failure, and it is time we held them to account? I urge her to resist calls to allow failing water companies to determine how many homes can be built in this country. Instead, we should make them do the job that they are there for, which is to give water to each and every one of us.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I could not have put it better myself. She is right to be cross about problems with water pressure. Instead, we seem to be deflecting the problem by saying, “We should not build the homes we need”. We absolutely should build the homes we need, and we should ensure that the water companies deliver the water for them.

In 2023, South West Water was fined little more than £2 million for seven pollution incidents dating back seven years at South West Water facilities, including at Kilmington. Now we learn that it has been fined less than £2 million for supplying drinking water in south Devon that left 140 people sick and four people hospitalised. This company had revenue of nearly three quarters of a billion pounds last year. How is the Minister upholding the polluter pays principle when the polluter only has to set aside loose change?

That was a record fine for not delivering safe and clean drinking water, but the hon. Gentleman is right that what happened there is a serious issue. Issuing fines is a matter for the independent regulators. On making the polluter pay, through our changes to the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 we can recoup the cost of investigation from the company, and we can carry out more investigations, so under this Government the polluter really does pay.

The River Stort is one of our rare and precious local chalk streams, and my residents were rightly furious when they discovered that Thames Water has been pumping sewage into it for hundreds of hours. When I asked Thames Water what it intended to do to remedy the situation, it told me that it had an improvement plan in place and it would not be ready until 2028 at the earliest. That is not good enough. My residents will not stand for that, and neither will I. Can the Minister say a little more about what we can do to hold these water companies to account, to speed up the progress that they are making, and to ensure that we protect our rare chalk streams specifically?

My hon. Friend is right to point out how beautiful and rare our chalk streams are. In fact, they are often known as our rainforests, because England is one of the only places in the world where we find chalk streams. He is right to be angry about Thames Water polluting them. Under the rules that we have set under this Government, we have prioritised chalk streams and bathing waters as an issue of public safety and protecting the environment. If Thames Water is not doing that, I am keen for my hon. Friend to write to me with the specifics, and I will take it up with the company.

In my constituency, sewage was spilt from the Arborfield treatment works 28 times last year, and in the last few days sewage has poured into the Emm brook. Given the numerous repeated sewage spillages in Wokingham and across the country, will the Minister back the Liberal Democrat proposals for a mutually owned public benefit model for water companies, focusing investment on the environment, customers and replacing and repairing infrastructure rather than on lining the pockets of water company shareholders and senior managers?

The Government are, of course, determined to tackle the sewage scandal head-on and clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good. We want to address the root cause of pollution. We are shifting the focus to a dual approach, driving water company action and pre-pipe solutions, tackling sewer misuse and pushing for better rainwater management. These changes are more sustainable, enabling growth, delivering more benefits, reducing flood risk and protecting biodiversity. We will hold companies to account for the promises made in respect of their storm overflows discharge reduction funds.