Emma Hardy MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2026 · Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady raises an important point, and I absolutely recognise the impact that flooding has on businesses. Through the floods resilience taskforce, we have been looking at the various grants that are available. As she will know, that sits within the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but conversations are happening across Departments.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman and the EFRA Committee for their work. He will have heard our commitment to the £30 million coastal fund, which is looking at what we should do about managing coastal erosion and the risks of coastal flooding.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the concern about surface water flooding, which, owing to climate change and flash flooding, is becoming a greater risk than it ever was in previous years. As I have said, there are no current plans to look at businesses, but it should be possible for domestic properties to be covered by Flood Re. However, if the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me about this, he can of course do so.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend knows that I share his love of nature-based solutions and natural flood management, so he will be as delighted as I am that we are putting a minimum of £300 million into natural flood management under our current plans.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend raises an important point. We are continuing to work with the Government, the regulator and industry to review the scheme eligibility criteria, including considering options to better support leaseholders.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to be responding to the hon. Lady, because I think that the very first Adjournment debate I had as a Minister was with her and it was about flooding. It is nice that whenever I make a statement about flooding, I already know who will be in the room. I commend her on her tireless campaigning on this issue and the commitment she has shown to her constituents. I have been pleased to go and see those property flood resilience measures and the difference they have made to communities. Flood performance certificates will be piloted, and those communities are an example of where householders have taken measures—albeit in this case through the Environment Agency—to better protect their homes from flooding. When people do that, it should be reflected in their premiums, and there is not currently a way to do that. The system looks at postcodes and areas, and gives people a premium on that basis, but we want to make it more intelligent, so that it can recognise if someone has made their home more resilient to flooding—that should mean that they have cheaper premiums.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I recognise his commitment to flood protection. He referenced our meeting, at which we discussed the £50 million that we are putting into Somerset because of its particular landscape and challenges. He is right to highlight the accounts that Flood Re has produced; without reform or change, we would be in a poor situation. Flood Re has been an amazing success, but to continue for the next 10 years, it needs to change. That is why we are introducing the changes that I have mentioned: targeting those who most need support by introducing a cap, making contents cover cheaper for lower council tax bands, and the work on the premium model. One of the other changes, which is probably not as eye-catching, is allowing Flood Re access to some of its trapped capital to make reinsurance costs cheaper. All of the reforms that Flood Re is introducing are intended to ensure that it is sustainable and keeps going. Turning to continued support for flood protection, the hon. Gentleman will know that we have put the most money into flood protection of any Government ever, with £10.5 billion committed for the next 10 years. There are no current plans to include businesses because, as I said, Flood Re works by levying every insurance company; if we were to include businesses, we would be levying every business in the country to pay for it. For people in the top council tax bands, we are looking at flood performance certificates, so that if they can take action to improve the resilience of their home, that will be reflected in their premiums. We are doing some pilots, and I have been pushing insurance companies and others to get those pilots out the door as quickly as possible. We are not just looking at the top council tax bands; we are also looking at people in social housing to see how flood performance certificates could work. As for when these changes are going to take place, contents insurance changes will take effect from 2027, but the cap will be from 2028. Up until that period, Flood Re will be carrying out extensive engagement with insurers and other people to make sure they are setting affordable limits. This is all about ensuring that Flood Re is there for the next 10 years.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re · Hansard source

  More

  I recognise the work that my hon. Friend has done on this issue through the Environmental Audit Committee. Although businesses are not eligible for Flood Re, the record amount of money that we are putting into flood defences should help to make flood insurance more affordable right across the country. Exactly as she says, building resilience and preparedness is what makes a difference, as well as insurance companies paying out every time there is a flood. We need to make our country more resilient, and that is a huge focus of the work I am doing.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is quite right to say that we need to take action on the risk of flooding. That is why this Government are putting the most money into flood protection and taking action against flooding of any Government ever. In our first year in government, we delivered 151 flood schemes, better protecting more than 24,000 homes; that was after we put £108 million into maintenance to restore and repair our flood defences, many of which were in a poor condition. We are also putting £300 million into natural flood management—again, the most money any Government have ever put in. We have put in another £30 million for coastal adaption, and we have reformed the flood funding formula to ensure that it gives proper weight to deprivation, so that the communities that are most affected by flooding and least able to recover have more support. Total funding for internal drainage boards is £91 million, so I think we have ticked the box for “Have this Government put their money where their mouth is when it comes to protecting our country from flooding?” We have not only done that; we are also looking at sustainable urban drainage systems and at introducing flood performance certificates, so that we can reward homes that have become more resilient to flooding. We are also looking at a fundamental change to how we address resilience and flooding as a country. When flooding happens, the people who go out there and do the work in the communities—whether local people, the Environment Agency or all the emergency services—deserve our absolute support, because the only thing I cannot protect this country against is climate change.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, because before he was elected as a Member of Parliament, he was running part of the Living With Water project in my constituency, which looked at bringing together the Environment Agency, Yorkshire Water and the council to create more sustainable urban drainage to improve resilience to flooding. He played a tremendous role and has made a real difference to many people’s lives. I share his delight that Flood Re is more than halving the premiums it charges insurers for contents-only insurance for the 45% of homes in council tax bands A and B to £25 a year. That will make a real difference to people’s lives, making insurance more affordable for everybody.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re · Hansard source

  More

  I echo my hon. Friend’s gratitude to flood wardens and volunteers all over the country, and I know how much this issue means to her. I am delighted that Flood Re is halving the premium that it charges for contents-only insurance for the 45% of homes in council tax bands A and B. It will be reduced to £25 a year from April 2027, which will make a huge difference to the cost of living.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Water Supply in Kent · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) for securing this debate, and for his excellent work on the Environmental Audit Committee. I am grateful to everyone who has spoken in the debate. In the time I have, I will do my best to answer as many questions as possible, but I think we are generally united in our feelings about this company and its performance. I express my sympathy again for all those affected by the recent disruption to supply in Kent, and I echo Members’ concerns about the human impact that it had. We heard the story of the lady who had a miscarriage, and about the people who had to use wet wipes, so we can see the impact that the disruption had on people’s lives. This was more than just a supply outage; it has a fundamental impact on everyone’s lives. Being without water is always very distressing, but that is particularly true during a period of hot weather and during the school half-term. As has been mentioned, it was the third major outage affecting customers. That is simply unacceptable. We all agree that it is important and right that the chair and CEO have resigned. I met the interim chair of South East Water twice during the incident, and I was clear that we need a focused plan for the summer. We expect the weather to become hot again, so we expect people to increase the amount of water they use. South East Water needs to work more closely with local partners so that it can rebuild trust. Members highlighted that trust has been broken and needs to be restored. It is good to hear that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) had a positive meeting with the interim chair. Rebuilding trust will take a long time, but we hope that it is starting to show. Weather can increase the demand for water—of course, it increased demand all around the country—but increased demand led to a supply outage at only one water company. One longer-term cause is the company’s failure to invest sufficiently in maintaining and strengthening its infrastructure. A reliable source of clean water is one of the fundamental foundations of a healthy, functioning society. We are rightly proud that we have some of the safest drinking water in the world, but that is no good if it fails to come out of the tap. The situation demands bold action to deliver fundamental, long-term reform, and that is exactly what I am trying to do. I will try to answer as many questions as I can. Six desalination plants are planned, largely in the south and south-east. One plant will specifically supply water for Sizewell C. Another is currently in operation in the Thames area, but there are also plants planned for Norfolk, Lincolnshire and the south and east coasts. Members asked what should happen if a company continues to fail. The ultimate action will be to consider special administration. Of course, there is a high bar for special administration on performance grounds. It requires a serious breach of principal duties or of an enforcement order such that it is inappropriate for the company to retain its licence. I want to be clear that the Government are working with all water sector regulators to carefully monitor the performance of all water companies, and we stand ready to intervene, if required, to ensure the continued provision of a vital customer service. The hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) was right to highlight concerns about poor communication. I echo her support for a true transformation not just in delivery, but in culture, communication and everything that goes with it. She mentioned farms, as did a couple of other hon. Members. I understand from South East Water and other organisations in the Kent resilience forum, which looked at the risk to water supply for a range of locations, including farms, that in general water companies will look to supply alternative water for animals where they are able to, but that it is important for livestock keepers to have appropriate contingency plans. Obviously, if they are not receiving water, I am keen to hear about it. I come now to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne). I hear his frustration and anger about this. He is right: we need to change things. The performance improvement regime that we are looking to introduce as part of our reforms is about doing that. Rather than being about intervening every time companies fail, it is about identifying poorly performing companies and getting in there early to support them in improving—it does what it says on the tin. Rather than waiting for failure in order to act, we say, “Okay, these are the poorly performing companies. We need to intervene early and look at why they are poorly performing. Is the reason leadership? Is it culture, asset standards or resilience? Is it that they have not got enough? What is the problem and what do we need to get in there?” That is one of our key reforms. If we are to build resilience, we have to get in there early and do something about it. I come now to the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale). It was awful—disgusting—to hear about the sewage. He was right to talk about capacity in respect of water and waste water, as was the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat). What are we going to do about water resources? We have a twin-track approach to improving water resilience that considers urgent action on water efficiency and reducing leaks—that is crucial—alongside investment in new supply infrastructure. We are trying to do both at the same time. The infrastructure includes reservoirs and water transfers, but they will not be ready and available tomorrow, so must consider water efficiency. MHCLG recently ran a consultation, which closed in January, on reforming the statutory consultee system. MHCLG is considering the role of water and sewerage companies in planning applications as it reviews responses to the consultation. In the meantime, colleagues in MHCLG are implementing a new plan-making system to ensure better join up between water and development planning processes. That includes prescribing water and sewerage companies in “requirement to assist” regulations so that they are obliged to assist with plan making where reasonably requested, and listing water and sewerage companies as consultation bodies, so that they are made aware of key plan-making consultations where they have an interest. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge was right to highlight specific failings, and I feel his exasperation. He pointed out the problems around trust. I wholeheartedly agree: it is very difficult to have trust in a company that continues to fail. On the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna), it is good that that £104 billion investment is there—that is really important. He made a good point about industry use of water. It is a bit bonkers that we use drinking water for cooling systems. I want to do something about that and about the lack of join up. We must look to the local resilience forum as well. Have I missed anybody? I hope not. No one is shaking their head to tell me I have. In that case, I thank everyone for raising their concerns. I had better be quiet now!

• 9 Jun 2026 · Water Safety · Hansard source

  More

  Without straying too far from the debate that we are having, the question of inequality is very interesting, especially with the news that the Conservative party wants to get rid of the public sector duty. We are actually looking at whether to expand that duty to include class as an inequality issue. Maybe if class was included in the public sector duty, we could ensure that we prioritise working-class children, who are more likely to drown, to receive the support that they need. However, that may be moving too far away from the topic of the debate. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) speaks brilliantly in every debate that we are both involved in. I agree that it is important that we all learn to swim. He is right to highlight quarries as extremely dangerous to swim in, and how we need to be aware that, even though the water looks calm on the surface, there are dangers underneath. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) made an important point about national parks, and gave a thoughtful contribution on how they communicate and the role that they play. I am happy to pass that on to the Nature Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), to have a look at. Water safety touches on public safety, education, local delivery, the environment and much more. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), said, this issue is held by many different Departments. DEFRA looks at water quality. We look at bathing waters, as has been mentioned. We designate sites and monitor water quality so that people can make decisions about where to swim, but it is right to highlight that, even if somewhere is designated as bathing water, people still need to think about how safe it is to swim there. But our bathing water reforms do, for the first time, require physical safety to be explicitly considered before a site can be designated. That is a meaningful change that we brought in. We also provide policy oversight and funding to the Canal and River Trust and the Environment Agency, which manage millions of miles of inland waterways. They look at risk assessments on high-risk locations, install lifesaving equipment where it is needed, run targeted safety campaigns, particularly during hot weather, and deliver education programmes, especially for young people. Both organisations support national campaigns such as the National Water Safety Forum’s “Respect the Water”, as well as partner campaigns such as the RNLI’s “Float to Live”, which provides simple, lifesaving advice on what someone should do if they get into difficulty in the water. This issue is held across Government. In my time as Minister, I have found that sometimes when things are held across Government, they are owned by everybody and nobody at the same time, so I am happy to support my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen in his call to convene a meeting of all responsible Departments, to sort out which actions need to be taken by which Department to move this issue forward. The Department of Health has responsibility for public health, and there is also the Health and Safety Executive. The Department for Transport, through the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, supports search and rescue, and contributes vital incident data to the national evidence base. Local authorities lead on frontline response and community safety. As many hon. Members mentioned, in education the national curriculum requires primary schools to teach children to swim. Then there are the prevention of future deaths reports and the powerful campaigning of families. The Secretary of State for Education has committed to strengthening water safety education. Many different Departments need to work together, looking at what they are responsible for and making sure that they action things through their Department. I would be happy to assist my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen in convening that meeting. It is through all these efforts, working together and backed by Government, that we reduce risk, save lives and ensure that people can continue to enjoy our waters safely.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Water Safety · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank everybody for what has been a really good debate. It shows Parliament at its best when we all try to work together for the same aim, and that is really important. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for securing the debate and for his powerful and moving words. I know him to be an incredibly decent and passionate man who is trying to do his best for his constituents. With Drowning Prevention Week beginning this Saturday, there is no better moment for this House to turn its attention to keeping people safe in our waters. Next week will also be the launch of the water safety framework, which has been led by the Department for Education. Before I respond to hon. Members on the policy substance, I extend my deepest condolences to the families and friends of all those who have lost their lives in water. I pay tribute to Sam’s family and the Mirror , who have been leading on this campaign. The fatalities we have seen during recent periods of warm weather, and the tragic deaths raised movingly in this room, underline the urgency of the issue. I pay tribute to the emergency services, volunteers and members of the public whose courage saves lives every day. I also pay tribute to organisations such as the Royal Life Saving Society, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, Swim England and the National Water Safety Forum: their tireless work in prevention, education and rescue deserves the recognition of the House. I will respond to some of the points made by hon. Members. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) in paying tribute to Luke for his courage. I agree that learning to swim is crucial and so is learning to survive; I will ensure that the points she made on this issue are communicated to the Department for Education. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) in thanking the RNLI for its work. I am of course happy to pass on her thoughts on the education programme to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and to DFE. I share her concerns about restricting training for kayak rolling. That does not feel particularly sensible to me. We must not let concerns about minor damage get in the way of lifesaving training—I am happy to support there. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) always speaks with such authority and compassion. I join her in paying tribute to York Rescue Boat for its work, and also thank Humber Rescue for its work in my constituency. My hon. Friend is right to raise water quality as a hugely important issue. It is not just about water shock and drowning: the quality of the water can have such a detrimental impact on people’s health. It is important that we do not lose sight of that. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) spoke movingly about the tragic loss faced by her constituent and the importance of us all working together, and I thank her for her speech. I know my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) has campaigned on water safety for a long time. His ten-minute rule Bill brought this matter to my attention. He has met with me before about the issue and has been completely committed to it. I will take up his points about water company safety equipment personally with water companies. We are doing some work on how to ensure that reservoirs are generally kept safe, so I am happy to take that point away personally. My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) spoke caringly about Sam’s law. I am thinking of the best way to achieve that, and whether we need primary legislation or whether we can just do it. Let me take that point away and have a look at it. In my constituency, Hull city council offers free swimming lessons during the summer for children. I hope that is something that many councils are able to offer. I have a personal frustration that Hull city council has still not opened Pickering Park pool, but I will not bring that into this debate.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Draft REACH (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all Committee members for their support and their contributions. UK REACH is a complex but important framework that underpins how we regulate chemicals to protect human health and the environment while supporting industry and trade. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire made an important point about the chemicals industry. Recent events have highlighted the importance of the chemicals industry and how essential it is to everything in the United Kingdom, including water. That is why I was so keen to work with the industry to make things as easy for them as possible. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the situation that he describes is an inevitable result of leaving the EU in the way we did. My constituency also voted to leave, but at none of the doors that I knocked on did anyone say that that was because they did not like the transitional arrangement for chemicals regulation, either, although maybe somebody somewhere did. Under UK REACH, recovered substances do not need to be registered if they meet certain conditions, one of which is that recovery must take place within the EU, so my hon. Friend is completely right. Let me quickly set out where we are trying to go. We have published a document on the new approach to ensure that regulators and regulation support the growth action plan, and in the environment improvement plan we want to make greater use of regulatory decisions made by like-minded jurisdictions, particularly the EU. To support that, we are looking to reform UK REACH so that we can apply protections that address chemical pollution more quickly and efficiently and in a way that is more aligned with our closest trading partners, especially the EU, by December 2028. We will take regulatory decisions in accordance with that reform unless there is a compelling reason to diverge—and it would have to be compelling. We will assess and, where appropriate, add substances to the authorisation list and will update the candidate list. Drawing from regulatory decision making in other jurisdictions does not change the importance of registration by GB companies, but it is a sensible way to conduct trade with our nearest and closest neighbours. In response to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, we are committed to closer alignment with EU REACH and we will ensure that divergence occurs only when it is compelling. We are currently defining the specific circumstances under which exemptions from EU alignment may be considered for UK REACH. We will publicly consult on those proposals, so I urge everybody to submit their thoughts. The changes that we are introducing under the draft regulations are simply an amendment to the deadlines to enable that work and that public consultation to take place. They will not reduce our high levels of protection for human health, but they will make things easier for businesses. I thank everyone for their support, and I commend the draft regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Draft REACH (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft REACH (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026. I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and I welcome all hon. Members to the Committee. The draft regulations were laid before this House on 24 March. I will go through them in detail, but in short, all they will do is move six dates to enable us to finish the alternative transitional registration model; amend UK REACH, which is a central part of the framework governing the safe use of chemicals in Great Britain; and amend the dates by which businesses must submit information to the Health and Safety Executive on chemicals that they manufacture and place on the market. UK REACH retains the core principles of the EU system, including its fundamental aim of ensuring a high level of protection for human health and the environment. I want to be clear from the outset that nothing in these draft regulations will change its aims or reduce its protections; they will just move six dates and make two key changes. The first change will extend the deadline from article 127P by which registrants—that is, manufacturers and importers—must submit information on their chemicals to the HSE. Our EU exit transitional arrangements were put in place to support a smooth and orderly move to the UK regime, including later deadlines to submit complete registration data. Under the current system, the deadlines fall on 27 October 2026, 27 October 2028 and 27 October 2030. The most hazardous and highest-tonnage substances come first. The draft regulations will extend those deadlines to 27 October 2029, 27 October 2030 and 27 October 2031 respectively. These provisions apply to all substances that were already on the EU market at the time of EU exit. I recognise that these deadlines have previously been extended, so let me address directly why we need to extend them further. In 2023, the then Government extended the deadlines because of transitional challenges, especially the considerable cost to the industry of acquiring the information required, usually from former EU partners. This allowed for the exploration of an alternative transitional registration model. The aim was a fair and workable system for all stakeholders. Since the election, this Government have reassessed our broader chemicals policy while we have completed exploration of the ATRm. This reflects our improved relationship with the European Union, but clearly the ATRm cannot be implemented in time for the first transitional registration deadline of 27 October 2026. As a result, it is necessary to extend the deadlines once more to ensure a robust and effective policy framework. This extension will avoid imposing significant and unnecessary costs on industry while we complete the development of a more proportionate and effective transitional model. Following a consultation in 2024, we published our approach to the ATRm on 30 March 2026, providing long-awaited clarity for industry. It will reduce the data that businesses must submit for UK REACH registration. The ATRm aims to cut by about 70% the one-off industry costs of transitional registration, but it also maintains the important protections that UK REACH provides. It recognises that companies that place chemicals on the GB market are responsible for managing the risks to human health and the environment, including harmful effects arising from their hazardous properties or how they are used in this country. Registration therefore remains key to ensuring that businesses understand and properly manage those risks in Great Britain. The extension of the deadline is to give us the extra time needed to finalise and implement the ATRm in a proportionate and workable way in the GB market. It will also give businesses the certainty that they need to plan for compliance, and will maintain continuity in important supply chains. We are acting decisively by bringing forward ATRm legislation so that the industry knows what it needs to do in good time for the new deadlines. Without the extension, businesses would have to meet the existing deadlines and submit the full registration requirements currently in UK REACH. The industry would face the full estimated £2 billion costs, when we have made clear this Government’s intention to remove them. I believe that that would be as unacceptable to this Committee as it is to the Government. The second change in the draft regulations is to the deadlines by which HSE must complete compliance checks on 20% of registration dossiers. The compliance check deadlines will thereby remain aligned with the revised registration submission deadlines; otherwise, HSE will have to complete checks before the relevant data is even submitted. Under the draft regulations, the deadlines for compliance checks will move to 27 October 2030, 27 October 2032 and 27 October 2036—I should have asked why 27 October, shouldn’t I? That will remain a mystery, but the time between the registration deadline and the related compliance checks deadline will remain unchanged. As with the previous amendment to UK REACH, made using a power in the Environment Act 2021, we have followed the safeguards set out in schedule 21 to that Act. We have worked closely with the devolved Governments in Scotland and Wales, who have given their consent for this instrument. We have consulted publicly to ensure that stakeholders have had the opportunity to provide views and evidence. We have published a statement confirming that the amendments are consistent with the overarching aims of UK REACH. We have also published an impact assessment, which demonstrates that extending the deadline will reduce unnecessary costs to businesses while maintaining an effective regulatory framework; it builds on the options assessment published in March 2026, which the Regulatory Policy Committee rated as fit for purpose. The territorial extent of the draft regulations is the United Kingdom. The devolved Governments are engaged in their development and are content. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has formally considered them without comment. The draft regulations will ensure that UK REACH continues to operate effectively during the transition to a more proportionate registration model. They will maintain high standards of protection for human health and the environment while giving industry the time and certainty to comply in a way that avoids unnecessary cost and disruption.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Water Companies · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Water Companies · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Water Companies · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Water Companies · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Water Companies · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Water Companies · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Water Companies · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Water Companies · Hansard source

  More

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

• 8 Jun 2026 · Water Companies · Hansard source

  More

  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.