UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Nick Gibb – 2011 Speech to the North of England Education Conference

    Nick Gibb – 2011 Speech to the North of England Education Conference

    The speech made by Nick Gibb, the then Minister of State for Schools, on 11 January 2011.

    The timing of the conference could not be better, with the white paper published at the end of November and the Education Bill to be published shortly.

    And the theme ‘Our World, Our Future’ could not be more appropriate.

    The context in which this conference is held is dominated by global factors – the growing dominance of the emerging economies of China and India; the global economic crisis; and the indebtedness of nations that during the boom years overspent and are now on the brink of financial collapse, as the global capital markets no longer regard them or sovereign debt as risk-free investments.

    Greece and Ireland are still teetering as they struggle with their structural deficits. And it is to avoid that fate that the Coalition Government has had to take some very difficult decisions.

    It’s not comfortable being a minister in a spending department in the midst of these problems, having to take decisions to reduce and refocus programmes on those in most need – programmes such as the Education Maintenance Allowance. And I know it isn’t comfortable either for those involved in local government, facing similar pressures.

    But it would be far worse to see our country’s economy plunge into crisis, as would happen if we failed to tackle our massive structural deficit. This year alone will see £156 billion added to our national debt, with an interest charge of £120 million every single day – enough to build 10 new primary schools.

    The independent Office for Budget Responsibility reports that without any further action to tackle the deficit, interest payments would rise to a staggering £67 billion a year by 2014-15. That’s almost two years’ total spending on schools: twice what we spend on the salaries of every teacher in England, twice what we spend running every state school in the country – just to pay the interest on the debt.

    And that all assumes, of course, that the capital markets would be willing to lend us these huge sums, which the experience of Greece and Ireland demonstrates that they would not. The longer the economy languishes in crisis, the later the economic recovery and the jobs that are so desperately needed, particularly for young people – the group who bear the brunt of a stagnant economy as companies freeze recruitment.

    But the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury do understand the importance of education to that recovery and to the long-term prosperity of this country.

    Education is a key priority for the Government which is why the Department for Education secured one of the best settlements in Whitehall.

    Spending on schools will remain at flat cash per pupil over the course of the spending review period, which means there will be extra cash for demographic increases in the school population.

    And on top of this will be the Pupil Premium, extra money for each pupil who qualifies for free school meals. This will amount to £430 per pupil in this coming financial year but will rise significantly over the next four years, to some £2.5 billion a year by 2014-15.

    But although we have secured the best possible settlement it still requires us to find cuts in the overall departmental budget of 3.4 per cent by 2014-15.

    Our approach has been to ensure we protect school budgets, while devolving as much autonomy as we can to headteachers by collapsing numerous funding streams into the main schools grant. We’re also giving local government far greater autonomy – streamlining 45 local government grants into just four funding streams.

    To ensure schools do receive this cash, we have had to take some difficult decisions over centralised programmes and ask ourselves this question: given that we have secured the very best possible settlement we could hope to have achieved from the Treasury and given the budget deficit, do we continue with a particular central programme and slice off a little from the amount we want to give to schools? Or do we end the programme and ensure that schools have that cash?

    Each programme has its supporters. Most of these programmes achieve things. Some – but not all – are good value for money.

    The problem is that the money isn’t there.

    Greater autonomy

    Our approach to spending – devolving as much control over limited resources as possible to the front line, to headteachers in particular – is the same approach that we take to education policy generally.

    Research from the OECD cites autonomy, combined with rigorous and objective external accountability, as the essential characteristics of the highest-performing education jurisdictions in the world.

    That’s the reasoning behind our drive to increase the autonomy of schools through expanding the academies programme and giving teachers and headteachers more control over their own destiny.

    We have always supported Labour’s Academy programme and pay tribute to the energy and commitment of Lord Adonis as Schools Minister in developing this policy and transforming so many schools.

    In the seven months since we came into office we’ve doubled the number of academies and hundreds more schools have applied to convert later in 2011.

    And we will support teachers, charities, parent groups and education foundations who have the vision and drive to open Free Schools where there is parental demand, particularly in areas of deprivation where poor provision is especially acute.

    And I hope that we can persuade some of the trade unions that Free Schools offer a real opportunity for teachers to put their professional expertise into practice. We would be delighted to see one or more of the teaching unions setting up their own Free Schools. They would certainly have our active support if they sought to do so.

    The case for change

    At the end of November we published our White Paper, entitled The Importance of Teaching, reflecting the earnestness of our desire to raise the status of the teaching profession and to return teaching to the centre of what happens in our schools.

    The theme of this conference, ‘Our World, Our Future’ is the right theme for an education conference, reflecting, as it does, the way today’s education system will determine the society we will have in 20 or 30 years’ time. It is a cliche to say that we live in a global economy. But like most cliches it reveals a truth, that young people will now be competing for jobs and income with the best-educated people not just in this country but from around the world.

    Which is why we need an education system that is on a par with the best in the world. And although we have some of the best schools in the world, the truth is that we also have too many that are still struggling.

    The attainment gap between rich and poor remains enormous – a gap we are determined to narrow and ultimately close; there are still too many weak schools in deprived areas; and teaching is rated by Ofsted as no better than satisfactory in half our schools.

    In 2010, 54.8 per cent achieved 5 or more GCSEs at grades A* to C, including English and maths. But of those eligible for free school meals just 30.9 per cent achieved this standard. And the gap between these two figures has remained stubbornly constant in recent years.

    In the OECD international performance table we’ve fallen from 4th in the year 2000 to 16th in science, from 7th to 25th in literacy, and from 8th to 28th in maths. The survey also showed that 15-year-olds in Shanghai, China, are two years ahead of our children in maths, and that 15-year-olds in Finland are two years ahead in literacy.

    Studies undertaken by Unicef and the OECD tell us that we have one of the most unequal education systems in the world, coming 55th out of 57 countries for educational equity and with one of the biggest gulfs between independent and state schools of any developed nation.

    And so our White Paper reform programme, and the Education Bill implementing that programme, is geared around the same simple truth that all leading systems share – that high-quality teaching is the single biggest determinant of a pupil’s achievement.

    The latest McKinsey report, Capturing the Leadership Premium about how the world’s top school systems are building leadership capacity, cites a number of studies from North America, one of which found that:

    … nearly 60 per cent of a school’s impact on student achievement is attributable to principal and teacher effectiveness. These are the most important in-school factors driving school success, with principals accounting for 25 per cent and teachers 33 per cent of a school’s total impact on achievement.

    Also in the McKinsey report, there’s an analysis of Ofsted inspection reports which concludes that:

    For every 100 schools that have good leadership and management, 93 will have good standards of student achievement. For every 100 schools that do not have good leadership and management, only one will have good standards of achievement.

    This is why the constant theme of the White Paper is the central importance, above all else, of the teaching profession and what we can do to ensure every child has access to the best possible teaching.

    Every single one of our reforms should be judged on how it equips teachers to do their job better – expanding the academy programme; encouraging new providers to galvanize and innovate; rigorous recruitment and training; strong discipline powers; a slimmed-down curriculum; robust assessment and inspection; and the Pupil Premium.

    Greater freedom

    We have some of the best headteachers and teachers working in our schools. But too often they say they’re constrained by needless bureaucracy, central targets and guidance, and an overly prescriptive curriculum that dictates, for example, that lessons should be in three parts, with a beginning, middle and end.

    We will slim down the National Curriculum. At present, the National Curriculum contains too much that is not essential, too much that is unclear and too much prescription about how to teach. Instead, it needs to be a tighter, more rigorous model of the knowledge which every child should be expected to master in core subjects at each key stage, to be a benchmark against which schools can be judged rather than a prescriptive straitjacket into which education is squeezed.

    Alongside greater control over budgets, we’ve scrapped the burdensome Self Evaluation Forms for school inspections and the overly bureaucratic Financial Management Standard in Schools.

    We are also committed to reducing central bureaucracy still further, cutting down on unnecessary data collection burdens and reforming Ofsted so that inspection is more proportionate, with fewer inspection criteria: instead of the 17 we will have just four – leadership, teaching, achievement and behaviour.

    Reading

    What underlies an effective education is the ability to read.

    Despite the hard work of teachers there are still too many children who fail to master this basic skill to a level that gives them the key to secondary education.

    15 per cent of seven-year-olds don’t reach the expected level in reading at Key Stage 1. One in five 11-year-olds leave primary school still struggling with English.

    And I’ve been to too many secondary schools where heads tell me that a significant minority of their intake has a reading age below nine or eight or sometimes six or seven.

    We need to identify early on those children who are struggling so they don’t slip through the net and so that schools can give those children the support and help they need.

    That is why we are introducing a new light-touch, phonics-based reading check for six-year-olds to ensure all children are on track with literacy at an early age.

    School improvement

    And because we understand why schools might have felt that the system – and Government – hasn’t been on their side in the past, there are also new measures in the White Paper to improve the exclusions process; ensuring that violent children cannot be reinstated against the wishes of the school, while improving alternative provision – and measures to protect teachers from malicious allegations by pupils and parents; including anonymity until charged with an offence.

    We want to move away from the top-down approach to education policy. That’s why we’re now giving schools the primary responsibility for their own improvement.

    This is not cutting schools adrift to let them sink or swim, as some claim. We will still set high minimum expectations for schools. For secondary schools, this means, at least 35 per cent of pupils with 5 or more GCSEs at grades A* to C including English and maths. And for primary schools, 60 per cent of the cohort achieving level 4 in English and maths combined and where progress is below the expected level. Crucially, both of these new floor standards will involve a progression measure as well as the raw attainment figure.

    But the onus should be on heads themselves to drive up standards, working together and drawing on the own wealth of expertise, experience, leadership and capacity within the system – without needing central government to mandate it through continual targets, ring-fenced grants and field forces.

    A culture of collaboration

    We believe that collaboration between schools and within the profession is a better and more effective means of school improvement than the top-down approach.

    The very best school leaders are characterised by their refusal to put a cap on aspiration for children and, consequently, tend to be those who are working in more than one school.

    This might mean that they’re an executive head in a federation where they lead two or more schools.

    It might now mean they’re an academy principal in an outstanding school working with another school to help them improve.

    Or it might mean they’re a national or local leader of education. I’m a huge admirer of all those heads who are NLEs or LLEs. They’re demonstrating that they want to go the extra mile to improve standards; not just for the children in their own schools, but in other schools too.

    That’s why we want to double the number of NLEs and will designate 1,000 over the next four years.

    We’re building a network of teaching schools.

    And we’re putting in place incentives for schools to work together – with a new £110 million Education Endowment Fund to encourage innovative approaches and inviting applications from schools and local authorities.

    We will also establish a new collaboration incentive worth £35 million a year to help schools support weaker schools.

    Role of local government

    I’ve been asked many times about the role of local authorities in a more autonomous school system, particularly as the number of academies continues to grow.

    We are clear that local authorities have a crucial role to play – as champions of children and parents, to ensure the school system works for every family; using their democratic mandate to challenge underperformance; and to ensure fair access to all schools for every child through the admissions system.

    The Secretary of State has established a ministerial advisory group with representatives from local government and education to work through what this means in practice – that local authorities would take action if there are concerns about the performance of any school in the area, using their intervention powers to act early to secure improvement in their own maintained schools.

    And where a local authority has concerns about an academy, it will be able to ask Ofsted to inspect the school and will, as now, be able to pursue those concerns with the Secretary of State.

    Conclusion

    There is a lot more I could talk about.

    But what I hope I have been able to demonstrate today is the seriousness with which we take education reform.

    And that at the core of that reform is the objective of closing the attainment gap between those from the wealthiest and poorest backgrounds.

    Deprivation should not mean destiny and it is ending that link that lies behind the urgency of our reforms.

  • Liz Truss – 2022 Speech on the Energy Policy Debate

    Liz Truss – 2022 Speech on the Energy Policy Debate

    The speech made by Liz Truss, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 8 September 2022.

    Mr Speaker, I beg to move the motion.

    Earlier this week I promised I would deal with the soaring energy prices faced by families and businesses across the UK.

    And today I am delivering on that promise.

    This Government is moving immediately to introduce a new Energy Price Guarantee that will give people certainty on energy bills.

    It will curb inflation and boost growth.

    This Guarantee – which includes a temporary suspension of green levies – means that from 1st October a typical household will pay no more than £2,500 per year for each of the next two years, while we get the energy market back on track.

    This will save a typical household £1,000 a year. It comes in addition to the £400 Energy Bills Support Scheme.

    This Guarantee supersedes the Ofgem price cap, and has been agreed with energy retailers.

    We will deliver this by securing the wholesale price for energy, while putting in place long-term measures to secure future supplies at more affordable rates.

    We are supporting this country through this winter and next, and tackling the root cause of high prices, so we are never in this position again.

    For those using heating oil, living in park homes or those on heat networks, we will set up a fund so that all UK consumers can benefit from equivalent support.

    We will also support all businesses, charities and public sector organisations with their energy costs this winter – offering an equivalent guarantee for 6 months.

    After those 6 months we will provide further support to vulnerable sectors, such as hospitality, including our local pubs.

    My Rt Hon Friend the Business Secretary will work with businesses to review where this should be targeted to make sure those most in need get support. This review will be concluded within 3 months, giving businesses certainty.

    In the meantime, companies with the wherewithal need to be looking for ways they can improve energy efficiency and increase direct energy generation

    We will be bringing forward emergency legislation to deliver this policy. And my Rt Hon Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will set out the expected costs as part of his fiscal statement later this month.

    I can tell the House today that we will not be giving in to calls for this to be funded through a windfall tax.

    That would undermine the national interest by discouraging the very investment we need to secure home-grown energy supplies. You can’t tax your way to growth.

    Instead, we are taking an approach which is pro-growth, pro-business and pro the investment we need for energy security.

    This is the moment to be bold. We are facing a global energy crisis and there are no ‘cost-free’ options.

    There will be a cost to this intervention. However we are also acting immediately to defray the cost of this intervention in three ways.

    Firstly, by ramping up supply.

    Following on from the successful vaccine taskforce, we have created a new Energy Supply Taskforce under the leadership of Maddy McTernan.

    They are already negotiating new long term energy contracts with domestic and international gas suppliers to immediately bring down the cost of this intervention.

    We are also accelerating all sources of domestic energy, including North Sea oil and gas production.

    We will be launching a new licensing round, which we expect to lead to over 100 new licences being awarded.

    And we will speed up our deployment of all clean and renewable technologies including hydrogen, solar, carbon capture and storage, and wind… where we are already the world leader in offshore generation.

    Renewable and nuclear generators will move onto Contracts for Difference to end the situation where electricity prices are set by the marginal price of gas.

    This will mean generators are receiving a fair price, reflecting their cost of production, further bringing down the cost of this intervention.

    Secondly, today’s action will deliver substantial benefits to our economy, boosting growth which increases tax receipts and gives certainty to business.

    This intervention is expected to curb inflation by up to 5 percentage points, bringing a reduction in the cost of servicing government debt.

    Thirdly, this morning, together with the Bank of England, we will set up a new scheme, worth up to £40 billion, to ensure that firms operating in wholesale energy markets have the liquidity they need to manage price volatility.

    This will stabilise the market and decrease the likelihood that energy retailers need our support, like they did last Winter.

    By increasing supply, boosting the economy and increasing liquidity in the market we will significantly reduce the cost to government of this intervention.

    As well as dealing with the immediate situation we face, we are also dealing with the root causes.

    Energy policy over the past decades has not focused enough on securing supply.

    There’s no better example than nuclear, where the UK has not built a single new nuclear reactor in 25 years.

    It’s not just about supply. The regulatory structures have failed, exposing the problems of having a price cap applied to the retail but not the wholesale market.

    All of this has left us vulnerable to volatile global markets and malign actors in an increasingly geopolitical world.

    That is why Putin is exploiting by weaponising energy supplies as part of his illegal war on Ukraine.

    So as well as the action we are taking today on bills, we will use the next 2 years to make sure that the United Kingdom is never in this situation again.

    I will be launching two reviews.

    Firstly, a review of energy regulation to fix the underlying problems. We want a new approach which will address supply and affordability for the long term.

    Secondly, we will conduct a review to ensure we deliver net zero by 2050 in a way that is pro-business and pro-growth. This review will be led by my Rt Hon Friend the member for Kingswood.

    We are delivering a stable environment that gives investors the confidence to back gas as part of our transition to net zero.

    We will end the moratorium on extracting our huge reserves of shale, which could get gas flowing in as soon as six months, where there is local support.

    We will launch Great British Nuclear later this month – putting us on the path to deliver up to a quarter of our electricity generation with nuclear by 2050.

    As a result of these steps on shale and nuclear and the acceleration of renewables, I am today setting a new ambition for our country.

    Far from being dependent on the global energy market and the actions of malign actors, we will make sure the UK a net energy exporter by 2040.

    And my Rt Hon Friend the Business Secretary will set out a plan in the next two months to make sure we achieve this.

    I know businesses and families are very concerned about how they will get through this winter.

    That’s why I felt it was important to act urgently to provide immediate help and support, as well as setting out our plan about how we are going to secure the UK’s future supplies.

    This is part of my vision for rebuilding our economy.

    Secure energy supply is vital to growth and prosperity. Yet it has been ignored for too long.

    I will end the UK’s short-termist approach to energy security and supply once and for all.

    That is what I promised on the steps of Downing Street.

    Today we are acting decisively to deliver that pledge.

    This will help us build a stronger, more resilient and more secure United Kingdom.

    I commend this motion to the House.

  • Buckingham Palace – 2022 Statement on the Health of Queen Elizabeth II

    Buckingham Palace – 2022 Statement on the Health of Queen Elizabeth II

    The statement made by Buckingham Palace on 8 September 2022.

    Following further evaluation this morning, The Queen’s doctors are concerned for Her Majesty’s health and have recommended she remain under medical supervision.

    The Queen remains comfortable and at Balmoral.

  • Michael Gove – 2010 Statement on the Pupil Premium

    Michael Gove – 2010 Statement on the Pupil Premium

    The statement made by Michael Gove, the then Secretary of State for Education, in the House of Commons on 13 December 2010.

    I can today confirm that the total funding available for the pupil premium will be £625m in 2011-12, rising each year until 2014-15 when it will be worth £2.5bn. The pupil premium, a key Coalition priority, will target extra money at pupils from deprived backgrounds – pupils we know underachieve compared to their non-deprived peers – in order to support them in reaching their potential.

    In 2011-12, the pupil premium will be allocated to those pupils eligible for free school meals. We have chosen this indicator because it directly targets pupils and because the link between FSM eligibility and low attainment is strong. However, we aim from 2012-13 to extend the reach of the premium to those who have previously been on free school meals.

    The level of the pupil premium will be £430 per pupil and will be the same for every deprived pupil, no matter where they live. The Coalition’s objective is to reform the underlying funding system to ensure that over time deprived children in every part of the country receive the same level of support. We will consult on how best to meet this objective.

    The funding for the pupil premium is in addition to the underlying schools budget, which will be at the same cash-per-pupil level for 2011-12 as this year. This means there will be an additional £430 for every child known to be eligible for free school meals in any school from next year. This is clear additional money to help the very poorest who were let down by the last Government.

    This additional funding will be passed straight to schools and because we have not ring-fenced it at school level, schools will have freedom to employ the strategies that they know will support their pupils to increase their attainment.

    In allocating the pupil premium, we have also recognised that looked-after children face additional barriers to reaching their potential and so these pupils too will receive a premium of £430. The premium for looked-after children will rise in subsequent years, in line with the premium for deprived pupils.

    For both looked-after children and deprived pupils in non-mainstream settings, we will pay this funding to the authority that has the responsibility of care for the child and will give local authorities additional freedoms to distribute the funding in the way they see best for the provision of support for these pupils. The pupil premium will be paid to academies and Free Schools by the YPLA.

    Last week, the Prime Minister announced that we are also providing a premium for the children of armed services personnel. Service children – many of whose parents are risking their lives for their country – face unique challenges and stresses. The premium will provide extra funding to schools with service children to support the schools in meeting these needs. We expect the focus of expenditure from the premium to be on pastoral support. Today I am pleased to announce that the level of this premium will be £200 in 2011-12.

  • Andrew Jones – 2022 Speech on Independent Brewers: Small Brewers Relief

    Andrew Jones – 2022 Speech on Independent Brewers: Small Brewers Relief

    The speech made by Andrew Jones, the Conservative MP for Harrogate and Knaresborough, in the House of Commons on 6 September 2022.

    I thank the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for securing the debate and allowing other Members to participate, now that we have a little longer for this Adjournment debate.

    I will not detain the House long because I have spoken on this issue many times before. I initiated the small brewers relief review as a Treasury Minister, quite some time ago. I did so because during preparation for the 2017 Budget, I spoke with brewers large and small. There is clear affection for the industry across this House; every constituency has examples of businesses that reflect the ingenuity, creativity, enterprise and character of the area. These businesses are deep in the DNA of our country, so a taxation regime that disincentivises the sector needs to be corrected. One of the most depressing conversations I had in the run-up to the 2017 Budget was with a small brewer who said they had stopped their export operation simply because they had reached the top of the threshold for relief. We have a taxation structure that disincentivises activity when we want and need growth, particularly in exports. That is where this proposal came from.

    I tried to ensure that we had an industry-wide solution, with the industry coming together, because frankly this has been the source of some dispute. That was not to be—the industry could not come together—but significant work has been done by successive Exchequer Secretaries, resulting in proposals that have brought the industry together and are broadly supported. That is a good thing. This has been a good piece of work, done as part of a broader alcohol review, and I have a couple of points to make to my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary.

    We need to get on and implement the findings of the review, simply to end the uncertainty that has dogged the sector. The hon. Member for Midlothian and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) are right to have articulated the challenges and broader business pressures facing the sector, so let us act in the one area we can control and implement the review right away. As I said, this is part of a broader alcohol review, other parts of which have not landed quite as well as the beer category. I urge the Minister not to delay implementing the beer review while work on other parts of the sector is refined. Get on with implementing these findings, because I think it would be a popular move and end uncertainty. I am thinking in particular of activity that will incentivise growth. People are stopping product and market development when they hit a top threshold. The proposals will go a long way to make that problem disappear.

    We also have proposals in mergers and acquisition for production to absorbed over three years rather than one, so that businesses can make accommodation for that. That is a good thing. We have seen depressed M&A activity in this sector, because of the historic rules, but the proposals will correct the problem.

    I have spoken with local brewers in Harrogate and Knaresborough and beyond in the past few weeks, and the message from them is, “Please get on with it.” We need to create a regulatory taxation platform that encourages growth and corrects the problems that the existing SBR had created, while recognising that, as the hon. Member for Midlothian articulated, it has driven new entrants into the market. We are good on start-ups, but bad on scale-ups—we can correct that by implementing the review.

  • Robin Millar – 2022 Speech on Independent Brewers: Small Brewers Relief

    Robin Millar – 2022 Speech on Independent Brewers: Small Brewers Relief

    The speech made by Robin Millar, the Conservative MP for Aberconwy, in the House of Commons on 6 September 2022.

    I congratulate the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) on securing the debate on this important issue. I know that brewing generally is of great interest to many colleagues.

    My constituency of Aberconwy is home to some of the finest—I might say the finest—local food and drink producers anywhere in the UK. I am proud to support that industry and sector in my constituency. I welcome the bold reforms to alcohol duty, and the support for pubs and brewers, in the last Budget. I am also proud to SIBA, the Society of Independent Brewers, in its “Make it 20” campaign, which seeks to apply a 5% reduction in beer duty to 20 and 30-litre kegs. I will briefly outline why the campaign is important to small breweries by using the example of the Wild Horse Brewing Co in Llandudno.

    The company is in my constituency and sells more than 70% of its annual production in 20 and 30-litre kegs. As it has grown, it has made a significant investment in 600 30-litre kegs. Most of its beer is sold to small independent bars, pubs and restaurants, which rely on smaller containers in order to offer variety and keep the beer fresh. Given that most of the brewery’s beer is sold in 20 and 30-litre kegs, it will not benefit from the 5% reduction in beer duty, and because none of its beers is under 3.5%, it will not benefit from the widening of the lower duty bracket. This is a business that, with support from the UK Government, has overcome the challenges of the pandemic, and has invested in its future and in the town of Llandudno in my constituency. Over the last 18 months, Dave Faragher, the managing director and founder, has increased his team from seven to 10 employees, two of whom originally started with the UK Government’s kickstart scheme.

    Breweries and pubs are businesses that are vital to jobs and communities throughout the UK, especially in constituencies such as mine. Llandudno is known as the queen of resorts and is one of the largest resort areas in Wales. It is important that such businesses are supported and their contribution to the economy recognised, yet there can be no doubt that these same breweries and pubs have faced unprecedented challenges over the last three years. The sector bore the brunt of the economic consequences of the lockdowns and the trading restrictions of the pandemic. It now faces the challenge of rising costs of ingredients and energy—issues of huge concern for such an energy-intensive industry.

    Just this weekend, small breweries learned of a threefold increase in CO2 prices and a likely supply crunch at the end of September. Production of CO2 in Billingham—one of the largest producers, which is responsible for about 60% of UK production—will end and Ensus will stop its production for three weeks. As we know, CO2 is vital not just for breweries, but for the entire food and agricultural sector, which falls within the purview of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I therefore must take this opportunity to call on DEFRA to take urgent action, as happened last year—it has shown itself able and willing to do so—to secure CO2 production and supplies, and to reduce costs.

    Jim Shannon

    The crucial factor is that either the small brewers relief scheme is enabled to help small businesses, or there will be closures and job losses, with no money from those wages going into the economy. The Government and the Minister need to enable the small brewers relief scheme in a way that helps those businesses now, as energy rises. It is a straightforward decision—one way or the other.

    Robin Millar

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think it is fair to say that businesses, and I count breweries among them, are not looking for charity. They recognise that the Government are not here to give recompense for loss of profits and the like. They are looking for the help they need to get through these tough times.

    I am deeply sympathetic to businesses that are facing challenges and working to overcome them, day in, day out. I believe that most are not looking for charity or a hand-out. They just want help to get through another set of challenges. I urge the Government to review the arbitrary nature of small brewers relief and to make 20-litre and 30-litre kegs eligible for the 5% reduction in duty. Small brewers and hard-working small businesses at the heart of our communities, such as the Wild Horse brewery in Llandudno, deserve that consideration.

  • Owen Thompson – 2022 Speech on Independent Brewers: Small Brewers Relief

    Owen Thompson – 2022 Speech on Independent Brewers: Small Brewers Relief

    The speech made by Owen Thompson, the SNP MP for Midlothian, in the House of Commons on 6 September 2022.

    It is good to see such an amazing turnout for tonight’s Adjournment debate and such an interest in small brewers relief!

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)

    Order. Will right hon. and hon. Members please leave quietly, because if they do not, we will not be able to hear the Adjournment debate?

    Owen Thompson

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Take two. Politicians like to talk about how everything, in one way or another, is political. We would say that, wouldn’t we? But I think it is genuinely true; decisions taken in places such as this set the scene for our broader social and cultural lives. How we answer questions such as what gets support, what is left to the whims of the free market and how much is something taxed can have a direct impact on how people live, what products they use, what they eat and what they drink. That is certainly the case when it comes to beer.

    When we look at Scotland and the UK’s independent brewing scene today, we see diversity and growth, but this is not how it has always been. Only 20 years ago, there were only about 400 brewers in the UK, whereas today the number stands at about 1,900, which is five times as many, with nearly one in every parliamentary constituency. Midlothian, my constituency, punches well above its weight when it comes to brewing, as it does in many other regards; to name just a few local companies, we have Stewart Brewing, Cross Borders, Top Out, Otherworld and Black Metal. The overall picture in recent years has been a booming sector coming out of nowhere and making a huge economic impact.

    According to the Society of Independent Brewers, which is represented here tonight with Barry Watts, Keith Bott, Eddie Gadd, Roy Allkin and Greg Hobbs in the Gallery—I am delighted to see them here and I thank them for their support in campaigning on this issue—small independent breweries contribute about £270 million to GDP each year and employ about 6,000 full-time staff. That is an average of 4.1 employees per brewery. A great deal of that success is precisely because in 2002 the Government of the day recognised that existing policy—beer duty—was artificially holding back a sector. In addressing that, politics has enabled craft beer to flourish, to the point where it is now embedded in our culture. Much of this is thanks to small brewers relief, which celebrates its 20th birthday this year. Conveniently, today of all days, the Five Points brewery in Hackney hosted a 20th anniversary celebration to mark the good that SBR has done. Sadly, parliamentary business meant that I could not make it along, but I am told that it was a roaring success, and I hope the Minister will join me in congratulating the organisers.

    SBR was introduced to help smaller craft brewers compete in a marketplace dominated by large and global brewers. It allows smaller breweries who make less beer to pay a more proportionate amount of tax, as with income tax. For those who produce up to 5,000 hectolitres a year, which, for clarity, is about 900,000 pints and enough to supply around 15 pubs—or one Downing Street Christmas party, perhaps—SBR means a 50% reduction in the beer duty they pay. Above 5,000 hectolitres, brewers pay duty on a sliding scale, up to the same 100% rate that the global producers pay. This enables brewers to invest in their businesses, create jobs and compete with the global companies.

    However, SBR has always had a major glitch. Once a brewer makes more than 5,000 hectolitres, the rate at which duty relief is withdrawn acts as a cliff edge. As a result, instead of empowering small brewers to grow, SBR puts up a barrier, and all because of a wee technicality. It is not the sort of thing that should take years and years to address, but sadly that is exactly what has happened.

    As far back as 2018 the Treasury announced a review of SBR to address the cliff edge. Since then, brewers have been barraged with a review in 2019, a technical consultation in 2021, a call for evidence on the alcohol duty system, and a consultation on yet another new system this year.

    Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)

    I think a number of us were discussing this matter back in November 2020. One of the drivers then was the sense that we needed to support small, independent brewers coming out of covid. Here we are almost two years down the road. We need to support them in relation to covid and in relation to energy. The need to incentivise support from this Government—we all agree how important the brewers are to our communities, as well as to the economy—is just as important now as it was then, if not more so. We would welcome a supportive response from the Government.

    Owen Thompson

    The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. I will speak later about some of the issues that businesses currently face with regard to energy costs.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    In my constituency, as in the hon. Lady’s, we have breweries. I am reminded of Bullhouse Brewery in Greengraves Road in Newtonards, a local family business. It produces an incredible product that sells well, but it is a small brewery. It really is in that category. Without the assistance of small brewers relief, there is no guarantee that our independent brewers would be able to survive. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that to ensure that our local brewers are able to remain comfortably on their feet, there must be greater relief on their beer duty to ensure that they are not penalised by crippling tax in years to come? The very fact of what local brewers do means that they are intensive users of electricity so the costs for them are multiplied to a place where they may not be able to survive.

    Owen Thompson

    I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Many small family brewers are so much a part of their local communities. It is not just about the business, it is what they do for their local communities.

    Each proposal that the Government have brought forward so far has been a step up from the last, but has missed the mark in crucial ways. So let us look at the most recent reform package that the Treasury has put on the table—what it gets right, which it does, and where we still have some way to go. I welcome last year’s announcement that the 50% rate would be reduced to 2,500 hectolitres. This came off the back of a great deal of lobbying from campaign groups and Members across the House, and demonstrates the cross-party willpower to get this right for our brewers. That is not to mention a public petition of more than 50,000 signatures. But issues remain.

    Brewers cannot wait any longer for another half-right, half-wrong proposal. This time, the Treasury must listen to brewers’ calls, act decisively, and implement that decision. No more leaving brewers in the lurch. They have a right to know the final details of what the Government are planning and when it will be introduced so that they can be prepared for the changes. So, having spoken to SIBA and to local brewers in Midlothian, I am asking the Treasury to address the following problems in its most recent proposals with transparency and urgency. I and many small brewers have serious concerns about the ways in which these reforms could turn small brewers relief into big global brewers relief. Time and again, the current proposals open the door to benefiting the big players, and it is almost starting to look as if that is a feature, not a bug. For one, the Treasury needs to scrap its plan to set the start and end point of relief depending on the UK’s average alcohol by volume. This nationwide average is heavily skewed towards global brewers, and it needs to be the average of small brewers instead. Then we have the fact that the reduced rate of SBR will be widened from 2.8% to 3.4% ABV, at £8.42 instead of £19.08.

    SIBA has told me that it is concerned that this allows large brewers to undercut smaller ones—they could easily cash in on the benefits by altering their recipes to a lower ABV. Not only would that cost the Treasury an estimated £200 million a year in lost revenue, but it would fundamentally go against the spirit of SBR. On top of that, we have the Treasury’s decision to maintain the Farmgate exemption, which exempts 80% of cider makers from paying any duty. Small cider producers absolutely deserve parity of support, but there is no getting round the fact that the cider sector has a very different landscape. Global producers account for 87% of the cider sold in pubs, so it is global producers again that disproportionally benefit from the Farmgate exemption.

    According to SIBA, taxing cider at the same rate as beer could raise £360 million a year for the Treasury, so why is it not happening? Are the Government scared of upsetting big business yet again? Using SBR reform as a means of opening the door to advantaging global brewers just does not make sense, yet it seems to be the direction of the Treasury. At best, this is an honest oversight. At worst, it is as if the Treasury is trying to stick to these plans no matter what. I think that questions need to be asked about what communications and hospitality the Treasury might have received from some of these large global brewing companies. I urge the Minister to ensure that that is not the case and that small brewers relief is genuinely to support small brewers and not be that in name only.

    Aspects of the latest proposals for SBR reform also undo some of SBR’s spirit of innovation and growth. When calculating a producer’s average ABV, the proposed new small producer relief will include everything the producer makes—beer or otherwise. I am sure that it has not escaped the notice of the Minister or others in the Chamber that many small brewers are branching out and not simply making beer but also spirits such as gin or whisky, and this innovation should be welcomed. However, under the current plans, producing spirits will send a brewer’s average ABV skyrocketing. Small producer relief will act as a roadblock to innovation. Instead, the average ABV calculations should only include products of up to 8.5%—the same amount that actually qualifies for relief.

    The Treasury also needs to urgently clarify some issues around its simplification of ABV bands surrounding SBR. It is welcome that SBR will now apply to beer below 2.8%. That can only encourage a trend of lower alcohol beer to aid in healthier drinking habits. However, will this affect brewers that currently receive up to 50% relief on beer between 2.9% and 3.4%. There is zero clarity on this and brewers need an answer. I urge the Minister to address this in his response.

    Furthermore, under the current proposals, the Treasury is planning to introduce a reduced rate of about 5% for draught products below 8.5% ABV in large containers of at least 40 litres. This is a positive step forward, but why stop there? The Minister will be aware of SIBA’s “make it 20” campaign. Small brewers and community pubs often use 20 or 30 litre containers to keep the beer fresh. Even some of the larger pub chains are using that size of containers because of the freshness of the product. Will the Minister commit to expanding the reduced rate to include containers of that size? Go on, prove that the Treasury does actually care about the wee guys after all. Crucially, the Minister needs to guarantee that this is full SBR, by ensuring that relief fully applies in cash terms to the lower rate, main, higher and the draught products rate so that small brewers can continue to compete.

    On top of this, the way in which the small producer relief is calculated is a completely untested system. Rather than using a simple percentage, brewers will have to consider different cash reliefs at different alcohol bands, based on hectolitres of pure alcohol. It is unnecessarily complex and could act as a cash cap, once again discouraging brewers from innovating.

    Brewers do not just need solutions to those issues; they need them to happen now. Frustratingly, however, delay and confusion have been the name of the game so far. First, brewers were promised an announcement on the final details of SBR reform before the summer, but it would appear that the Government have been a bit too busy over the summer to have got around to it, so it never happened. I hope the Minister will take today as an opportunity to give a long-awaited update and maybe even a date of publication for it. Secondly, SBR reform has been rolled into the wider alcohol duty review. Small brewers simply cannot wait for that review’s findings, so I hope the Minister will listen to calls for the reform to be progressed on its original timetable for February 2023.

    This is not good enough. The urgency of supporting the brewing sector is possibly more serious now than ever before. Under this Government, the mass closure of pubs and breweries is more likely than it has ever been. The industry is facing a multi-faceted crisis of covid recovery, energy price hikes, Brexit and climate issues.

    The brewing industry was one of the pandemic’s worst-hit sectors, with pub closures locking it out of 80% of its sales. Production fell by 40% in 2020 and remained 16% below 2019 levels in 2021. On average, each small brewer came out of the pandemic with £30,000 of debt. The Scottish Government’s brewers support fund provided millions of pounds of direct support for the sector, but there was no equivalent from the Westminster Government, whose wider package of hospitality support failed to include hundreds of brewers. As a result, the UK lost 160 active brewers during the pandemic and has lost between 40 and 60 more this year.

    Yet there is a growing consensus in the sector that the current crisis is far more worrying than even at the height of the pandemic. Skyrocketing energy bills are putting brewers’ futures at risk. One Midlothian brewer told me that their electricity bill was currently triple what it had been a year ago, at an unimaginable £90,000 a year. They estimated that by next year it would reach £180,000. Another local brewer is paying £21,600 more on energy this year than it did last year, almost enough to hire yet another a new employee.

    The energy crisis also has indirect effects on the supply chain, as the energy cost of producing certain materials skyrockets. For example, I have been told that the price of buying cans to put beer in has risen from 9p to 14p, leading to massive increases in costs.

    Then we have Brexit, which has created not only product movement issues, but a change of attitudes among buyers on the continent. At a time when the cost of living crisis could mean people spending less money in pubs, the last thing brewers need is a complicated export processing system, but that is exactly what Brexit has given them. A brewery in Kent that was chosen by the Department for International Trade as a Brexit export champion recently revealed that it only has one EU customer left. When EU buyers look at the paperwork needed to trade with UK brewers, it seems the conclusion they come to is, “Why bother?”.

    The climate crisis is also wreaking havoc on the industry. With the recent high temperatures and drought, hop harvests in Europe are expected to be down 20% to 40% on last year, which means higher prices yet again in the coming months. As if that picture was not worrying enough, there is yet another shortage of CO2, a key part of the brewing process, again partly due to energy prices.

    There are glimmers of hope that I have seen when speaking to local businesses throughout the summer. Many are responding to energy prices and CO2 shortages by installing green technology to help with renewable energy generation, storage, electrolysis and CO2 recovery. The Government might not be engaging with long-term planning to adapt to this crisis, but local businesses in Midlothian certainly are. They are turning up the dial on the green revolution in the place that matters most: their own back yards.

    However, that kind of long-term investment is exactly that—long term. The up-front costs can be prohibitive for many, while Government funds such as the industrial energy transformation fund are again aimed at larger businesses. Distilleries benefited from £11 million to help them to go green, so I would be grateful if the Minister would consider further steps to help small and medium-sized enterprises such as small brewers to cover the up-front costs of some of those innovations.

    I am here because of Midlothian, to fight the corner of its residents and businesses. That is why I have been talking to local businesses over the summer to understand the issues they are facing in the midst of this crisis, and it is why I am standing here today to communicate those messages to the Government. That is how the system is meant to work. It would be a huge failure of the system if the Treasury were to shrug its shoulders and plough on with these poorly thought-out plans regardless.

    Midlothian is blessed with many independent brewers, which are a huge asset to the local economy, the community and its culture, but the Treasury’s current proposals for SBR reform seem to put global producers first. They undermine the incentive to grow and do not go nearly far enough to support these valued businesses through the energy crisis, which is existential for many. The back and forth of four years of fiddling with SBR reform simply has to end. We need the Government to act today to give brewers clarity on what reform will look like, to address the concerns about SBR reform benefiting global companies and discouraging innovation, and to deliver urgent support for energy bills and switching to green energy production. That way, I hope that we can continue to raise a glass to our independent brewers for years to come, because they give so much to all our communities.

  • George Eustice – 2022 Statement on Sewage Pollution

    George Eustice – 2022 Statement on Sewage Pollution

    The statement made by George Eustice, the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the House of Commons on 6 September 2022.

    As a Cornish MP, I have long been aware of the challenges created for our aquatic environment by storm overflows. When I became Secretary of State in February 2020, I instructed officials to change the strategic policy statement for Ofwat to give the issue greater priority.

    This is the first Government to set a clear requirement for water companies to reduce the harm caused by sewage discharges: we have set that in law through the Environment Act 2021. We are taking action now on a scale never seen before. Water companies are investing £3.1 billion now to deliver 800 storm overflow improvements across England by 2025. This will deliver an average 25% reduction in discharges by 2025.

    We have also increased monitoring. In 2016, only 5% of storm overflows were monitored. Following the action of this Government, almost 90% are now monitored, and by next year 100% of all storm overflows will be required to have monitors fitted. This new information has allowed our regulators to take action against water companies. The Environment Agency and Ofwat have launched the largest criminal and civil investigations into water companies ever, at more than 2,200 treatment works, following the improvements that we have made to monitoring data. That follows 54 prosecutions against water companies since 2015, securing fines of nearly £140 million.

    Water companies should consider themselves on notice. We will not let them get away with illegal activity. Where permits are breached, we are taking action and bringing prosecutions. Under our landmark Environment Act, we have also made it a legal requirement for companies to provide discharge data to the Environment Agency and make it available to the public in near real time: within an hour. This is what Conservative Members have voted for: an Environment Act that will clean up our rivers and restore our water environment; that has increased monitoring and strengthened accountability; and that adds tough new duties to tackle sewage overflows for the first time.

    The Government have also been clear that companies cannot profit from environmental damage, so we have provided new powers to Ofwat under the Environment Act to modify water company licence conditions. Ofwat is currently consulting on proposals that will enable it to take enforcement action against companies that do not link dividend payments to their environmental performance or that are failing to be transparent about their dividend payouts.

    Yesterday, I laid before Parliament the storm overflows discharge reduction plan. The plan will start the largest investment in infrastructure ever undertaken by the water industry: an estimated £56 billion of capital investment over the next 25 years. It sets strict new targets for water companies to reduce sewage discharges. Designated bathing waters will be the first sites to see change. By 2035, water companies must ensure that overflows affecting designated bathing waters meet strict standards to protect public health. We will also see significant reductions in discharges at 75% of high-priority sites.

    Water is one of our most precious commodities. Water companies must clean up their act and bring these harmful discharges to an end. I commend our storm overflow report, which was published yesterday, to the House.

    Caroline Lucas

    I thank the Secretary of State for his response, but I am utterly staggered by his complacency. Following the news over the summer that raw sewage was being pumped into our waterways and along our beautiful beaches, I have received so many messages from constituents who are horrified that water companies are polluting in such a revolting way. Does the Secretary of State recognise that, after 12 years, people rightly hold his Government responsible for this risk to human and environmental health, and for allowing the twin failures of weak regulation and Government cuts, together with the continuation of a privatisation process that has lined the pockets of shareholders at the expense of investment in the infrastructure that we so desperately need?

    Where is the urgency from Ministers? We have a so-called plan that allows water companies to continue polluting until 2035 in areas of significant importance to human and ecological health and until 2050 elsewhere, which means sanctioning nearly 30 more years of pollution. Is that genuinely what the Secretary of State considers to be an urgent response? Will he strengthen it to a 90% reduction in storm overflows by 2030 at the latest? Worse still, it was previously illegal for water companies to discharge sewage when there was no heavy rainfall, but under the Government’s new plan, that is now permitted until 2050. Why are this Government going backwards?

    Our soon-to-be Prime Minister has claimed that she will “deliver, deliver, deliver”, but all that she did deliver when she was Environment Secretary were devastating cuts to the Environment Agency. Has the Secretary of State asked whether she regrets those cuts, and will the Government reverse them? Is the Secretary of State proud of a situation in which 24% of sewage overflow pipes at popular resorts have monitors that are faulty, or do not have monitors at all? Since privatisation in 1991, water companies have made a staggering £50 billion in dividends for their shareholders. Why does the Secretary of State’s plan include imposing costs on customers to pay for improvements—a bill that the companies themselves should be footing?

    Coastal communities are still recovering from the pandemic. Local beaches are at the heart of these communities, and they are critical to our constituents’ wellbeing as well as to local economies. However, one local firm in Brighton told me that on the August bank holiday weekend, when it would normally see a 30% increase in business, it saw a 70% decrease. What compensation will there be for such businesses?

    Will the Secretary of State now cut the crap, commit himself to strengthening the Government’s plan, and bring our failing system back into public hands, which is where it belongs?

    Mr Speaker

    Order. Let me just say that that was a good joke, but it is not what we want to start this term with. Come on—let us have the Secretary of State.

    George Eustice

    The hon. Lady delivered her comments with characteristic passion, but she was wrong to say that the Government had not prioritised this issue. Had she listened to my response to the urgent question, she would have heard that when I became Secretary of State this was one of the first things that I prioritised in changing the strategic policy statement.

    The hon. Lady would like immediate action to be taken on these matters, but the truth is that long-term infrastructure changes and investments are necessary. We have to take decisions now, and invest in the infrastructure and the capacity to prevent such discharges from happening. Were we to do what the hon. Lady would like, which is to stop using these arrangements immediately, sewage would literally back up into people’s homes, and I am not sure that that is something they would thank us for. We must therefore have a programme of investment, and we are the first Government to set this out. The hon. Lady is correct in saying that down the decades, since the Victorian era, Governments of all colours have failed to give this matter adequate priority. Ours is the first Government in history to do so, and that is what our plan sets out.

    The hon. Lady made a point about costs. We are mindful of this. As we roll out our programme, we must prioritise the most harmful discharges in the near term, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are taking action right now, with a £3 billion investment that will reduce discharges by 25% by 2025, and we will then prioritise bathing waters and other priority sites with a target of 2035. Those measures will require that infrastructure investment, and will require some funding. As I said in my initial response, we are doing this in a way that will ensure that it is funded fairly and that companies cannot award dividends unless they are performing properly. Let me also point out that Ofwat regularly tries to drive greater value from water companies, to the extent that last year a number of them appealed to the Competition and Markets Authority to say that Ofwat was being too hard on them.

    I disagree with the points that the hon. Lady has made. Ours is the first Government to prioritise this issue, but doing so requires us to make decisions now that will bring about long-term improvements, and that is what we have decided to do.

    Mr Speaker

    We now come to the Father of the House, Sir Peter Bottomley.

    Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)

    Those of us who have been around for a long time do not believe that nationalised industries would allow the necessary level of investment to be continued. Can I ask the Secretary of State whether the companies, the regulator and the Environment Agency knew the scale of the discharges?

    George Eustice

    My hon. Friend raises an important issue, and it was only when this Government required increased monitoring that we discovered the scale of the problem. The reality is that this has been a problem for some time, but successive Governments down the decades have not had the right monitoring in place to recognise it. As soon as we recognised this, the Environment Agency started to bring record numbers of prosecutions against companies that appear to have been breaching their permit requirements. We are not sure whether that was an error that those companies were making, and that they did not realise they were making some of those discharges, or whether it was deliberate. There is a moot point about why the Environment Agency did not detect this earlier, and that is now the subject of an investigation by the Office for Environmental Protection, which was set up under our Environment Act 2021.

    Mr Speaker

    We now come to the shadow Secretary of State, Jim McMahon.

    Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)

    The scenes over the summer have shown us again that the country is awash with Conservative-approved filthy raw sewage. Over the last six years, there have been over 1 million sewage discharge spill events, which on average means a spill taking place every 2.5 minutes. Just in the time that we will be in this Chamber for this urgent question, 18 sewage discharges will take place. The water companies are laughing all the way to the bank and the Government are complicit in treating our country like an open sewer, allowing raw human waste to be dumped on our beaches and playing fields and into our streams and bathing waters, where families live and holiday and where their children play.

    This is the record and the legacy of a decade of decline, including from the new Prime Minister, who slashed the enforcement budget by a quarter when she was in the right hon. Gentleman’s post. There might be a new Prime Minister, but it is the same old Tories. In the Environment Secretary’s own backyard, he has subjected his constituents to 581 sewage discharges in the last year alone. The very people who voted for him and put their trust in him have been let down by him. This could have been avoided had Conservative MPs not blocked changes that would have ended sewage discharges and finally held the water companies to account.

    The Government’s plan is not worth the paper it is written on. It is business as usual, giving water bosses the green light to carry out another 4.8 million discharges through to 2035. When will the Government finally step up to eliminate the dumping of raw sewage into our environment? I have a message for whoever may be in the right hon. Gentleman’s post as early as this evening: the Labour party is putting you on notice. We are taking this fight, constituency by constituency, from Cumbria to Cornwall to turn those neglected filthy brown seats into bright red.

    George Eustice

    The hon. Gentleman’s contribution is characteristically political—[Interruption.] Let me say that this is the first Government to increase monitoring so that we knew there was a problem. This is the first Government to set out a £56 billion investment plan to tackle this. No previous Government, not even Labour Governments, ever prioritised this issue in the way that we have. The hon. Gentleman mentions cuts to the Environment Agency budget, but he misunderstands how that budget works. The cost of monitoring water companies’ permits for the management of combined storm overflows is cost-recovered through the permit, and there have been no cuts to that. They can to recover those costs, and we have increased the grant in aid budget to enable them to do further enforcement action. That is why we have seen record numbers of prosecutions being brought under this Government’s watch.

    Mr Speaker

    We now come to the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Sir Robert Goodwill.

    Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)

    Before privatisation, every single gallon of Scarborough sewage was pumped into the sea untreated. Since privatisation, we have seen investment in the Burniston water treatment works, which has been upgraded with ultraviolet treatment to increase its capacity, and in a 4 million litre stormwater tank at the end of Marine Drive that captures the majority of heavy storms. Would the Secretary of State agree that the bathing water off the Yorkshire coast has never been cleaner, and that while there is more work to be done, particularly on some of our inland waterways, private sector investment is the way to deliver that?

    George Eustice

    My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have prioritised investments through the new strategic policy statement for Ofwat, which means that this issue is being prioritised for the first time ever. He is also right that private capital has helped to raise the money to lead to infrastructure improvements. Things were not perfect in the days of nationalisation. Indeed, we did not even understand the scale of the problem because there was not the monitoring in place, which we have now required, to recognise it.

    Mr Speaker

    I call the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, Dame Meg Hillier.

    Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)

    In 2019, the River Lea suffered a discharge for 1,000 hours. That was three years ago, and the ripple effect of it will be longer than just this summer. But the Environment Agency, in response to my questions, says—as the Minister said—“Well, it is okay, we are monitoring more.” But that monitoring does not seem to deter the water companies from repeating their action. So why does he think the threat of prosecution and fines is not delivering quicker and better investment to stop this happening?

    George Eustice

    Quite simply, because this is the first Government in history to require all of these 15,000 storm overflows to be properly monitored, and now that we have that data, this is the first Government ever to bring prosecutions against those companies, and they will respond to that. This is also the first Government ever to prioritise £56 billion of investment to improve infrastructure so that these storm overflows are not needed.

    Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)

    May I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and his clarity on this issue? Does he agree that that is in stark contrast with the Liberal Democrats, who are pumping out alarmist, inaccurate and frankly toxic material into our constituencies through leaflets and social media? In stark contrast, this Conservative Government are the first Government ever to take action on this and hold the water companies to account and to stop these illegal and unacceptable discharges.

    George Eustice

    No surprises there.

    Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) rose—[Interruption.]

    Mr Speaker

    As a matter of interest, the hon. Member did put his name in on this urgent question, so I am taking his question and I do not need any barracking.

    Tim Farron

    Thank you, Mr Speaker; impeccable timing, as always.

    Look, it is obvious to everybody watching that we have a colossal problem: 6 million hours of sewage being dumped legally into our seas, lakes and rivers in the last year. These are the specifics of it: in the last 48 hours, a sewage dump on the beach at Seaford in Lewes. In my part of the world, Morecambe bay, 5,000 hours of sewage discharges on to the sands, and 1,000 hours into Windermere. Juxtapose that with £2.8 billion of profits for the water companies, £1 billion in shareholder dividend and the executives giving themselves 20% pay rises, 60% in the form of bonuses. I do not know about you, Mr Speaker, but I thought bonuses were what you got when you do a good job. And all this is done legally, on the sanction of this Government. When will they make these discharges illegal and ensure that the water companies pump their profits into ensuring that they protect homes and businesses, and our seas and lakes?

    George Eustice

    Our Environment Act addresses all the substantive points that the hon. Gentleman raised. As I said in my statement, Ofwat is currently consulting on an ability to regulate the dividends that companies pay and to link that to their environmental performance.

    I would simply repeat that this is the first Government to prioritise this issue. These are long-term challenges. We could argue that the coalition Government, and Governments before them, could have acted on this issue and had a different strategic policy statement. There were Liberal Democrats in that Government. They chose to prioritise other issues, such as the alternative vote and Lords reform.

    Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)

    I will cry in a minute! Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is this Government who have prioritised this issue of tackling sewage discharges, with the monitoring, the reporting and the big investigation under way; and that, contrary to what we have heard from some Members, the Liberal Democrats actually voted against all those measures in the Environment Act? So they could have helped.

    Crucially, would my right hon. Friend, who has himself done so much on this issue in the Department, agree that what is important now is that the regulator uses the power it has and uses its new directions; that the EA takes forward prosecutions following this intensive investigation; and that the water companies do not pay huge salaries if they cannot demonstrate that their house is in order?

    George Eustice

    I commend my hon. Friend for her role in progressing this agenda and for the work that she did on the Environment Act, which sets out all the new powers that we need to address this challenge. She is absolutely right: we introduced powers under the Act to give Ofwat new abilities to scrutinise and to change dividend awards. It is consulting on measures to do that now. It is because of the work of my hon. Friend and others in government and in the Department that we have the powers under the Environment Act to finally tackle this long-standing challenge.

    Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)

    Recently the Environment Agency branded Southern Water “appalling” and awarded it a one-star rating. Frankly, in the view of my constituents, that was one whole star too many, and many of them are considering not paying their bills. I have held two public meetings in Whitstable so that representatives from our sailing clubs, swimmers, fishers and residents could confront Southern Water directly. Will the Secretary of State—or one of the Ministers, because we do not know who it will be—come to my constituency and meet groups such as SOS Whitstable, and hear from them what damage this is doing to our economy on a daily basis?

    George Eustice

    Southern Water is one of the companies that were recently investigated, and was subject to a record fine of close to £90 million. That significant fine actually precipitated a change in ownership of that company. I know that the new owners are committed to addressing the historic problems that they have had. As for whether a Minister will visit the hon. Lady’s constituency, if she would like to write to me or wait and see who is around tomorrow, I am sure they will look favourably on her request.

    Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)

    As my right hon. Friend knows, the River Wye is a priceless national asset, threatened by phosphate pollution. He also knows that the Wye is unusual because it crosses the border between Wales and England and the majority of its phosphate does not come from sewage companies, and therefore it will not be as affected as other rivers by the thoroughly laudable measures that my right hon. Friend has taken. Will he make a note to his successor, if there is one, and to his officials now in the Box, that the next administration of DEFRA, if there is one, should take the matter up with great energy and authority, and press the cross-border issue, for the betterment of the Wye, the whole catchment and this country as a whole?

    George Eustice

    My right hon. Friend raises an important point, in that there are sometimes cross-border issues. While we are taking leading action in England, we obviously also need other devolved Administrations, including in Wales, to play their part to address the challenge, particularly in catchments such as the Wye. I am aware of the point that he makes on phosphates. We are consulting at the moment on reducing nutrient pollution—both nitrogen and phosphates—from both agriculture and sewage treatment works, and I am sure that when the results are published they will give the impetus that he requires and requests for agriculture to be tackled.

    Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)

    Last week, I and 17 of my north-west colleagues wrote to United Utilities about reported significant sewage releases into the River Mersey. United Utilities has simply denied that it was responsible and cited Environment Agency estimates that it is responsible for only about 30% of pollution incidents in the river. What will the Government do, on a speedier timescale than the one that the Secretary of State’s plan sets out, to make sure that investment in infrastructure is brought forward? The companies seem to have got into a very bad habit of treating the money that they make as something to be given out in dividends and payments to senior executives, rather than invested in the infrastructure that will make sure that this stops in the future.

    George Eustice

    The next pricing review period starts in 2025, which is not soon enough for me. That is why I said to Ofwat, and to the water companies, that they should bring forward any investments that they are able to. That is why, as I said earlier, there will be £3.1 billion of investments up to 2025, on 800 overflows, which will significantly reduce discharges by about 25% by 2025—so in the near term.

    Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)

    Last week, I met Anglian Water to discuss the situation that had developed in Cleethorpes. Notwithstanding what the Secretary of State has just said, I was left with the feeling that we could be harder on it in the targets that we set. Whether that is through my right hon. Friend, Ofwat or the Environment Agency matters not. Could we look again at the targets that we are setting? In his earlier response, the Secretary of State mentioned 2035. That is a long way away. Traders in Cleethorpes want people to come along and be confident that the waters are clean.

    George Eustice

    My hon. Friend raises an important point. We are mindful of the impacts on bills. The average increase in bills with the measures we outlined—the £56 billion package—will be about £12 per household per year by around 2030. However, we have said that we will review this in 2027, and if it is possible to accelerate more of that investment, we will do so and the Government at that time can consider that position. I repeat that it is not the case that nothing is happening until 2035; indeed, we are spending more than £3 billion out to 2025, which will lead to a 25% reduction.

    Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)

    I have repeatedly raised the issue of sewage dumping on the beach in my constituency in this Chamber. The Government continually use the excuse that it would cost up to £660 billion to upgrade our sewers, but the actual cost, over 10 years, would be £21.7 billion. Since privatisation, £72 billion has been paid out in dividends, so why are the Government not making the water companies meet these costs?

    George Eustice

    We also published and laid before the House yesterday a report required under the Act on the feasibility of removing the storm overflows altogether. It is the case that the cost of completely removing them, as the hon. Lady would like, is up to about £600 billion. Reducing their use so that they are not used in an average year would, in itself, be in the region of £200 billion. We have chosen to spend £56 billion, a significant investment, to target the most harmful sewer discharges, and that will lead to significant change in the years ahead.

    Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)

    River pollution and sewage discharge in Wales is the responsibility of the Welsh Labour Government and last year there were more than 3,000 discharge incidents in waters around Anglesey. I have received many letters from my constituents who are concerned about the pollution of beautiful beaches such as Benllech as a result of the actions of Welsh Water. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Welsh Government need to take responsibility and urgently implement a plan?

    George Eustice

    We have set an important example with the storm overflow discharge reduction plan that we have published. We have committed to the investment and we are bringing record numbers of prosecutions in England against water companies. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we need the Welsh Government and the devolved Administrations to play their part too.

    Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)

    We have an ecological disaster with massive numbers of dead crustaceans, porpoises and seals washing up on the beaches around the Tees bay, hammering what is left of our fishing industry. In addition to the foul sewage discharges, levels of pyridine have been detected that are off the scale and there are concerns about the dredging of the river and the bay releasing toxins. Will the Minister assure me that his Department will commit to securing a proper explanation for this disaster and insist that his Tory Tees Valley Mayor does not repeat his misleading of the public about the quantities of dredgings being disposed of at sea?

    George Eustice

    The hon. Gentleman has raised this issue before and there was a tragic case of large numbers of crabs, in particular, being washed up on beaches in his constituency. We ordered an investigation by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture, our leading fisheries science agency, supported by Natural England. Their conclusion was that this is most likely caused by a natural algal bloom event.

    Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)

    My local beach, Longrock, saw the highest number of combined sewer overflow notifications in this last bathing season, so I could not agree more that South West Water needs to do more. However, the Secretary of State will know that it is not just an issue for the water companies. For example, in a combined sewerage system, water from our roads, our farmland, our roofs and our own homes will eventually overwhelm this aged system. What can he do to encourage us all to act more responsibly in the way we use water, which will eventually overflow this system and go on to our beaches?

    George Eustice

    My hon. Friend highlights an important point: the origin of this problem links back to the Victorian combined sewer system we have, where street drainage systems are linked into the foul water drainage system. Since the 1960s, new housing developments have been required to be on a different drainage system, but I am sorry to say that all too often they have ended up plumbed back into the sewer. One key thing that water companies will be prioritising is, where possible, particularly on those later housing developments, ensuring that the drainage system is genuinely separated from the sewer system.

    Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)

    Last year, South West Water dumped 350,000 hours of raw sewage into the rivers and seas around the south-west. It has just been handed a one-star rating by the Environment Agency and a third of its sewage monitors do not work, according to the EA. Meanwhile, executive pay is up, dividends are up and it issued a special dividend to reward shareholders with even more money. Is it not time that South West Water published a full list of each and every raw sewage outlet that it is intending to close so that bill payers, such as the Secretary of State and I, can look at what it is intending to do and how these things are going to close? This will allow us to hold South West Water to account, just as we will hold the Tory Government to account for their failure to take faster action at the next election.

    George Eustice

    The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) has met South West Water to discuss some of these issues. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that in 2016 only about 800 combined sewers were properly monitored and we have increased that to 12,000. Over the next year, we will increase it to 100% coverage. It is because of the action that this Government have taken to increase monitoring, something that no previous Government had done, that we have determined that there is a problem and we are bringing prosecutions against these companies.

    Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)

    On the island, we have persuaded Southern Water to undertake its most ambitious pathfinder project, which should, in time, see dramatic improvements. We need them, because in the past 24 hours we have had overflows at Bembridge, Cowes, Ryde, Seaview, Freshwater and Gurnard, which is unacceptable. I pay tribute to the work done by the Secretary of State and former Ministers in bringing in these new laws that have exposed the problem. We have seen the complacency and the failure in the water industry. Because of that failure and complacency, should we not now be bringing forward the legal timescales by which we demand action? We have exposed the problem, so can we not do more to demand that those water companies take the action that we all want to see?

    George Eustice

    It is important to distinguish between the failure of water companies to abide by their permit conditions, which is an issue and is the reason for the Environment Agency bringing multiple prosecutions on this matter—we must bring that to a speedy conclusion, seek immediate rectification and bring them back into compliance with their permit conditions—and the separate issue of the permitted use of storm overflows. That issue is about long-term investment in infrastructure, which is what our discharge plan addressed.

    Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)

    I hope you will excuse me for being slightly political on this matter, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State continues to talk about the discharges and how he is trying to catch up with the water companies, but the reality is that we should be surcharging the water companies for the continuous abuse of our rivers, streams, play areas, seas and everywhere that this gets into. It ruins our environment for our rivers and our streams. If he wants to deal with this, he should surcharge the companies. If they cannot pay the surcharge, he should bring this back into public ownership—that is the answer to all of this.

    George Eustice

    As I said, we have brought many prosecutions since 2015 and levied fines of about £140 million on the industry. In one case, that precipitated a change in ownership of a water company. The right thing to do is bring prosecutions where a company is in breach of its permits, and that is what the Environment Agency is doing.

    Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)

    Mr Speaker, thank you for granting not only this urgent question, but a 90-minute debate next Wednesday at 2.30 pm in Westminster Hall. Bexhill’s beach is red-flagged today, as it was yesterday, meaning that people should not enter the sea. It was the only beach in the area to be red-flagged and it is the only beach in the area whose bathing quality is not either “excellent” or “good”. I welcome the Secretary of State’s plan, but may I ask him to ensure that the areas that do not have good-quality bathing have a higher degree of prioritisation in the delivery of this plan?

    George Eustice

    I absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. Our discharge reduction plan absolutely prioritises bathing waters in those near-term investments.

    Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)

    While water companies such as Northumbria Water have made on average £2 billion profit a year since privatisation, filthy raw sewage is being dumped into our playing fields, our beaches and our waters. This included 1,248 sewage dumps across 48 sites in my constituency last year. Profits and shareholder dividends are up, at the expense of public health. I went to see for myself the River Don in my constituency a few weeks ago, and the stench alone made clear the scale of the issue. Will the Secretary of State and his Government act on this immediately, or is he content with this environmentally criminal behaviour?

    George Eustice

    I hope I have made it clear that we are not content with criminal behaviour, which is precisely why we are bringing record numbers of prosecutions, having discovered a problem as a result of the monitoring that the Government required. The hon. Lady mentions dividends. As I said earlier, the Environment Act 2021 gives us new powers, and Ofwat is currently consulting on new measures that will link dividend payments to environmental performance.

    Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)

    At the hottest part of the summer, beaches from Hastings to Worthing were blighted by the discharges by Southern Water, even though the rain after the dry period was not particularly heavy. Many of our constituents and tourists just could not use those beaches. While I welcome the extra data and monitoring equipment, which is making the problem more transparent, what we really need is better inspection and enforcement by the Environment Agency, and better explanations from the water companies when these spills occur. If they are lacking, the companies need to be penalised. We also need better information for our constituents as to whether it is safe to go back into the water.

    George Eustice

    My hon. Friend raises an important point. As I said in my statement, we are now requiring water companies to make available to the Environment Agency all the discharge data from storm overflows, and to publish it in near real time for the public. We shall continue to bring prosecutions where there are breaches of licence conditions.

    Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)

    Despite 12 years of Tory government and some of the tough and strong words in the Chamber today, in my constituency tonnes of sewage are discharged into the River Weaver, the River Mersey and the River Dane on a daily basis by United Utilities. The current system is not working. The future Secretary of State will need to step up, step in and get a grip of this situation. That is crystal clear right across this Chamber.

    George Eustice

    I am the first Secretary of State ever to publish a plan such as this. One of my first acts as Secretary of State in 2020 was to instruct officials to change the strategic policy statement for Ofwat, which for the first time prioritised reduction of storm overflows.

    Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)

    May I thank my right hon. Friend and his Ministers for all that they are doing to tackle this issue. He will be aware of the importance of water quality in areas where oysters are grown such as the Blackwater estuary. What progress is being made to require the water companies to provide additional investment to carry out microbiological treatment to prevent things like E. coli contamination?

    George Eustice

    My right hon. Friend raises an important point. One of the actions that we are requiring water companies to take in some instances will be to use techniques that will disinfect water to prevent E. coli counts in the way that he describes, which can indeed affect shellfish sectors in aquatic environments.

    Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)

    Is it not obvious that all these years of privatisation, all the billions that have been paid out in dividends and profits and the massive levels of executive pay have meant that not enough has been invested in the infrastructure, and that there have been excessive numbers of sewage discharges, which are getting worse? Is it not obvious that we should do what every other country in western Europe does and bring our water industry as a whole into public ownership under public control so that we do not damage our water infrastructure in order to pay profits to distant billionaires?

    George Eustice

    The original vision of water privatisation was that we would have publicly listed companies on the London stock exchange and that water bill payers would also be shareholders. In the early 2000s, most of the water companies fell into the hands of private equity operators, and that was a change. The then Government took a decision to issue licences to operate in perpetuity rather than for fixed periods, which was the case previously. There have been some changes since privatisation, but I am afraid his central charge that nationalisation is the way to get investment is wrong.

    Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)

    Sometimes we forget in this place how we ended up here. We ought to recognise the work of the Environmental Audit Committee, a number of members of which are in the Chamber. The Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), highlighted for the Chamber the entire situation in his water quality inquiry. Can the Secretary of State confirm that, without our work, we would never have highlighted the improper use of storm overflows, and we certainly would not have been in a position in which the Secretary of State has put together a plan to tackle this problem, which has gone on for years and years?

    George Eustice

    I am a great believer in the role of Parliament and always have been. It has been a team effort. When I became Secretary of State, I prioritised this long before it was an issue in the media and long before people realised it was an issue. Many Members, including the Chair of the EAC, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), played a crucial role in making sure that we got the legislation right.

    Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)

    It is pretty obvious to most of my constituents that water privatisation has been a miserable failure. Most of our water companies are owned by foreign investment companies, and we have lost that link. I went campaigning for better water in the Colne, the Holme and the Calder some years ago, and Yorkshire Water said to me, “I don’t know what you are complaining about, Mr Sheerman; there is no river in England fit for humans to swim in.” That is the truth of the matter. I would not prioritise public ownership for this particular thing; I would use that for other sectors. But the fact of the matter is that the regulation has not worked, and it has got to work.

    George Eustice

    I agree, which is why the Government have changed our legal powers through the Environment Act 2021 to strengthen the regulation, and to require improved monitoring. On the basis of that monitoring and the evidence that it has revealed, we are now bringing record numbers of prosecutions. So the hon. Gentleman is right that there have been regulatory failures in the past. We have addressed those legal deficiencies through the Environment Act.

    Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)

    Thank you for allowing the urgent question, Mr Speaker. My right hon. Friend will be aware that Herefordshire has been under a moratorium for several years now. Herefordshire Council has spent millions of pounds of council tax money buying land around Welsh Water’s sewage works to work as soakaways, yet now I learn that Natural England wants to extend the moratorium to the rest of the county. Please will he use his time in office to stop Natural England from pursuing this pointless and ineffective policy?

    George Eustice

    This issue is linked to a separate but associated challenge around nutrient pollution. We published our proposals to make some changes to deal with this issue on a strategic level before the summer recess, and we may well indeed need some legislative changes as the challenges that he highlights are a legacy of EU law.

    Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)

    The Secretary of State talks as if he is the first Conservative Secretary of State under this Government. The Conservatives have had 12 years to deal with this issue. Now we are seeing images of raw sewage being pumped out into our coastal waters at the height of the summer season. We have had 12 years of freebooting, when chief execs have paid themselves unearned bonuses and billions have been paid out in dividends. It is 33 years since privatisation. We were told that privatisation was the answer to problems like this. Why has the situation got worse, not better?

    George Eustice

    I am afraid that the failure to address storm overflows goes back much further. This is a legacy of the Victorian infrastructure that we have in place, and no Government down the decades in the 20th century properly grasped it. Successive pricing reviews under the Labour Government prioritised price reductions over investments to tackle this challenge. The same was true of the coalition Government. This is the first Government ever to prioritise this issue.

    Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)

    Constituents of mine along Rivadale View in Ilkley—indeed all of Ilkley and I—are getting fed up with Yorkshire Water’s underground apparatus and infrastructure failing in Ilkley. We have one scenario where a manhole cover has burst nine times in the past 12 months. Every time it bursts, sewage flows into the River Wharfe. We have passed the landmark Environment Act 2021, which, dare I say it, the Opposition did not vote for. Does the Secretary of State agree that Yorkshire Water needs to get its act together and sort this out, so that my residents are not having to suffer the consequences of sewage getting into the River Wharfe from this manhole cover bursting time and again?

    George Eustice

    As I said earlier, thanks to the evidence that has been gathered as a result of the new monitoring that we required, we are now bringing investigations into around 2,200 sewage treatment works. I cannot comment on the specific manhole cover that my hon. Friend refers to, but I can reassure him that the Environment Agency is prioritising all of these sorts of challenges.

    Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)

    A couple of weeks ago, heavy rainfall in Sheffield resulted in sewage flowing into the garden of my constituent Perri Bradbury and on into her home, so it has damaged the carpets, the floorboards and furnishings. She has young children. I do not think that we can imagine the awfulness of this situation. When I asked Yorkshire Water about compensation, it did a bit of a clean-up and then said that, under the Water Industry Act 1991, because this was due to exceptional weather, it was not obliged to pay any compensation and would not do so. Is it not time that we changed this out-of-date legislation and made sure that the cost of the consequences of sewage overflows falls on the water companies and not on residents, who have completely no responsibly for this?

    George Eustice

    The episode that the hon. Gentleman describes is probably linked to a failure somewhere in the sewage infrastructure rather than storm overflows per se, and that is a slightly separate issue. If he would like to write to me, I will look at the specific case he raises.

    Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)

    On the topic of dirty waterways, more and more constituents have been getting in contact with me about the River Gipping over the summer. The river is full of algae and shopping trolleys and is distinctly unloved. Can the Secretary of State advise me and my constituents on how we can go about turning this situation around and potentially securing some extra funding? Ultimately, though, is it the Environment Agency or Ipswich Borough Council that is most responsible? Ipswich is not just about the waterfront on the River Orwell, which is lovely; it is also about the River Gipping. We have to love it and raise it up.

    George Eustice

    A number of agencies have a role in the situation that my hon. Friend describes. Typically, local authorities are responsible for most of the street drainage infrastructure and the schemes to address that, while the Environment Agency deals with fluvial flood risk, but the two often work together in partnership to tackle these challenges.

    Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)

    This summer, people visiting east Devon had their health put at risk by greedy water companies. Executives at South West Water have been paid £2.2 million in bonuses over the past two years. A sewage pollution alert has been issued today in Seaton, and last year South West Water discharged water for more than 1,100 hours across Beer and Seaton. How comfortable is the Secretary of State with the size of the bonuses that have already been paid to South West Water executives while that company has received from the Environment Agency a rock-bottom one-star rating?

    George Eustice

    As I said earlier, the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises has been addressed through the Environment Act 2021. We have taken new powers to give Ofwat the ability to link dividend payments to environmental performance, and we are addressing the challenge of storm overflows through the plan we set out yesterday.

    Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)

    I commend the Secretary of State—a fellow Cornish MP—for being the first Secretary of State so far to grasp this nettle and take robust action. As those on the Front Bench will understand, this is a serious problem in Cornwall, especially on the River Fowey, affecting our shell fishermen. It is also something that I raised more than two and a half years ago. Does he agree that enough is enough and that, if water companies are found not to be complying with their obligations, they should face unlimited fines, which I would like to see ringfenced so that we can invest back into the system to fix the problems, and even criminal penalties? If he does agree, will he set out how these will be implemented?

    George Eustice

    My hon. Friend raises an important point. As I have said, we are bringing a record number of investigations and prosecutions against water companies for potential breaches of their permit conditions. In addition, in the River Fowey, there is also a challenge around agricultural diffuse pollution, which contributes to the issue for the mussel and oyster fishery in that particular part of the world. That is something that we are addressing through our new targets in the Environment Act 2021.

    Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)

    That is clearly not enough. This is a public health issue. Will the Minister consider making it a strict liability offence to dump sewage anywhere and give the Environment Agency more immediate powers, such as cease and desist, because clearly it is being ignored?

    George Eustice

    The real challenge is that the Environment Agency was not fully aware that these breaches were occurring. That is why, as I said earlier, the Office for Environmental Protection is investigating why the Environment Agency was not aware that permits it had granted were, it appeared, not being followed in all cases. None the less, the Environment Agency has all the powers it needs to prosecute, to bring fines and to require immediate changes.

    Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)

    Does my right hon. Friend agree with me about the importance of having accurate facts and data in this area? Pollution incidents in my North Devon constituency are actually down by 83% this year compared with last year. The increase in monitoring means that macro data between years is not comparable. Furthermore, when storm overflows discharge, frequently that is not raw sewage. Does he also agree that misinformation from the Opposition and the media on this topic is potentially damaging businesses along the coast, especially when their water is clean?

    George Eustice

    My hon. Friend raises a very important point: we need to have accurate data, which is why we have required new monitoring to be put in place and new disclosures to be made by water companies both to the public and to the Environment Agency. She is also right that some storm overflows are discharging storm water from drains and not foul water—sewage—at all, and we need to make that distinction. That is why we are prioritising environmental harm rather than the total number of discharges, because we need to recognise that some are more harmful to the environment than others.

    Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)

    Water companies must clean up their act. Last year, Northumbrian Water allowed 615 days’ worth of raw sewage to be dumped into rivers at 92 sites across Durham, including the Wear, the Browney and the Deerness, making a lovely home for the dead ducks, the traffic cones, and the used drug kits filling up the Wear. Does the Minister believe that the new Prime Minister regrets her savage cuts to the Environment Agency’s monitoring and enforcement work?

    George Eustice

    As I have said, there has been an increase in the grant in aid for the Environment Agency since 2010. More importantly, the work done on monitoring is cost recovered through the licences and permits that are issued. On a wider point, yes, we recognise that this is a challenge. I recognised that on becoming Secretary of State in 2020. Our plan addresses all of the issues that the hon. Lady highlights.

    Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)

    Contrary to the absolute nonsense peddled by the Opposition, it is this Government who are the first in history to bring forward a comprehensive plan to tackle sewage discharges. At a time when household budgets are under immense pressure, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would have been incredibly reckless to have agreed to Labour’s plans to eliminate sewage discharges, which would have landed the taxpayer and consumers with a £600 billion bill and left consumers paying thousands more per year for their water?

    George Eustice

    As I said earlier, we have chosen to prioritise the most harmful sites and to prioritise them quickly, with £3 billion of investment until 2025 and £56 billion of investment across the programme. My hon. Friend is right: to eliminate all storm overflows in their entirety would be a huge undertaking, costing £600 billion, with a major impact on the bills of water bill payers.

    Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)

    Our sewage pollution is packed with wet wipes, and wet wipes that are made of plastic just never break down. Last week, I was on the banks of the River Thames visiting a wet wipe island, which was the size of two tennis courts and a metre deep. In February, the Government consulted on eliminating plastic from wet wipe production. It can be done, but the results have not been revealed. Can the Secretary of State say when the consultation results will be revealed and when the Government will ban plastic in wet wipes?

    George Eustice

    This Government have taken relentless action to remove plastics from the ocean, banning plastic stirrers and cotton buds and, as the hon. Lady says, consulting on the next steps to deal with non-biodegradable wet wipes. The consultation has now closed and it is the convention that they are typically replied to within nine to 12 months.

    Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)

    For decades—indeed since the Victorian era—sewage has been discharged into the River Chelt. That is, of course, completely unacceptable. Now Severn Trent Water has given me a cast-iron guarantee that it will cut discharges by 85% by the end of 2024. Does the Secretary of State agree that companies such as Severn Trent need to abide by those commitments, and that if they do not, my constituents and others like them will conclude that these water companies are the unacceptable face of capitalism?

    George Eustice

    It is important that we have worked closely with the water companies, many of which recognise that there is a challenge. As my hon. Friend says, many have now said that they want to bring forward investment planned for the late 2020s to much sooner and are discussing that with Ofwat. We recognise and welcome that; it is good that those water companies are finally waking up and recognising and dealing with this challenge.

    Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)

    It must be apparent from the response to the news of the combined sewer overflows that the public, our constituents, do not believe we are doing enough to stop that happening. Last year, the Government had the chance to go further in the Environment Act 2021, but did not do so. People are concerned about the impact on their health and the environment. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the health impact of CSOs, and will he look at speeding up the timetable for stopping them? I pay tribute to Surfers Against Sewage, which has done so much to highlight this issue.

    George Eustice

    The Environment Act addresses those issues, and this Government and Conservative Members voted for the changes that put in place the legal powers that we need to address this challenge. The hon. Lady asks whether we can speed things up; as I have said, we are already talking to water companies about bringing forward investment into the current pricing review period. We will have more than £3 billion-worth of investment up until 2025 and we will review in 2027 whether we can accelerate the plan further.

    Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)

    I am very proud to have the Rivers Usk and Wye in my constituency but, as has already been said, the Wye flows from my constituency into England and back again. Last year, I asked the then Environment Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), to chair a roundtable of all parties with her counterpart in the Welsh Government. She kindly agreed to that, but the Welsh Labour Minister told me there was no value in such a meeting. Can the Secretary of State advise me on how we can drag the Welsh Government to the table and engage with them on this issue?

    George Eustice

    My hon. Friend raises an important point. As I have said several times, we are taking clear and assertive action in England to tackle the problem. We need the devolved Administrations, particularly Wales, to play their part as well, and it is disappointing if what she says is correct and Ministers have declined a meeting. I would advise her to work with Members of the Welsh Assembly to try to bring matters to a head and address the issue.

    John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)

    Could the Secretary of State send a copy of the statement he has made today to those people who claim to run Thames Water? So far in their correspondence with me they have refused to give any undertakings about keeping drains and overflows clear. They also refused to attend two public meetings in Leytonstone in my constituency on the flooding—in fact, getting a papal audience would be easier than getting constructive information from Thames Water. I hope I am wrong about this, but despite the Secretary of State’s best efforts I suspect that Thames Water, one of the most powerful companies in the country, will continue to treat elected representatives and consumers with contempt.

    George Eustice

    That is very disappointing, if what the hon. Gentleman says is right. In my constituency I have regular engagement with South West Water and I am sure many other hon. Members have regular engagement with their own water company. I would simply say that the key role of Government is to ensure that we have the legal powers to bring prosecutions where they are necessary, and to set in place the strategic plan to require the investment necessary to deal with this particular problem.

    Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)

    Countries around the world and other parts of the UK are battling historical infrastructure constraints that mix storm water with foul water. Does the Secretary of State agree that what we need in this debate is some cool, some balance and to deal in the facts? There has been some deeply grubby, irresponsible scaremongering over the summer from some of the usual suspects. In the spirit of honesty and truth—I appreciate that 2035 is a long way away; too long for many of my constituents—can the Secretary of State tell the House the cold, hard choices that he and his potential successor face, and I suppose therefore water bill payers in our constituencies face, to speed things up significantly?

    George Eustice

    It is not the case that nothing will be done until 2035. Indeed, investments are happening right now to improve more than 800 priority storm overflows. We will see a reduction in discharges across the country of around 25% by 2025, and then we will go further out until 2035. The estimated average increase in water bills for those actions, the £56 billion package that we have set out to 2030, will be in the region of £12 per year. Were we to go further, it would be around 10 times higher than that every year.

    Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)

    We have heard this afternoon of the ecological impact that many of these sewage discharges have on rivers and coastal areas, as well as the public health concerns that arise from them. It bears repeating, of course, that there is also an impact on local communities and businesses, especially in coastal communities. Does the Secretary of State agree that, as part of his plans to tackle the problem, perhaps compensation should be considered for those communities impacted, which might well prove an incentive to those water companies to speed up some of their work?

    George Eustice

    Obviously, the issue is devolved; the action we have taken is in respect of England and it is for the Welsh Government to tackle some of the challenges they have in their own area. The approach we have taken is essentially to require and allow unlimited fines against companies that breach their permit conditions. We are bringing record numbers of prosecutions and we believe that that is the right way to bring those water companies back into compliance.

    Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)

    My beautiful South West Hertfordshire constituency has the River Chess going through it. Jon Tyler is the last watercress farmer along the River Chess. Can my right hon. Friend give me assurance that the Environment Act, as is, is the best way to ensure that his business remains successful in the years to come?

    George Eustice

    My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Department is also working on a new horticulture strategy, and I invite him to write with details of the particular watercress grower he refers to, to ensure that the challenges they face are properly reflected in the new strategy we are developing.

    Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)

    I did not realise that the Government’s plan for biodiversity net gain was simply to boost the level of E. coli and Campylobacter in our rivers and waterways. That is a serious point, because earlier this summer the chief medical officer, Ofwat and the Environment Agency set out that they have real concerns about the spread of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in our waterways, not just because of sewage from storm overflows, but because of normal sewage treatment works. What is the wait? Why have we been waiting 28 years to ban that outright?

    George Eustice

    The hon. Lady is wrong. The environment targets that we are currently consulting on will set ambitious targets to improve bathing water quality, addressing issues such as E. coli counts. She is also wrong to say that the issue of breaches of permits from water treatment works is not being addressed; it is being investigated right now at 2,200 facilities and, where appropriate, prosecutions will be brought.

    Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con)

    My constituents in Mid Sussex have rightly been very concerned by social media’s inferring that the Government are not taking significant action. As confirmed today, that is both irresponsible and alarmist. We all enjoy the seaside in Sussex and across the country. People are acting today as if they do not bear any blame themselves, but we are all contributing to this problem. We should be allaying fears. DEFRA should be working to give my constituents and those across the land a clearer insight into the positive changes, and to ensure that we keep our resorts busy and our bathing water safe. Will the Department provide more clarity so that people understand that the situation is improving significantly?

    George Eustice

    I have been grateful for today’s opportunity and I hope to do precisely that. We all know that one should not believe everything one sees on social media. I tend not to participate on Twitter and social media for precisely that reason; in my view, it is best not to have a Twitter account. The important thing is that we parliamentarians focus on the substantive issue. That is what I have done as Secretary of State and it is what the report that we published yesterday does.

    Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)

    This was the first summer that Oxford West and Abingdon could enjoy the fact that the River Thames in Port Meadow had been granted bathing water status, and it was enjoyed by many, but it is the second of only two such sites in the entire country. I know that the Government want more locations to be granted the status, but that is difficult because of the huge amount of work that needs to be put into the bids, and the fact that no money is allocated in the Department to help communities and councils to put the bids together or to put in the extra resources. Will he consider a fund to help communities and councils to gain bathing water status for our rivers?

    George Eustice

    If the hon. Lady writes to us about her proposal, we will look at it. DEFRA has a target under the Environment Act 2021 to increase the number of bathing waters that are in good and favourable condition, and the Environment Agency and others work to ensure that the designations can be processed.

    Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)

    We need to establish the real scale of the problem. It has been estimated that providing a full solution to storm overflow discharges will require the replacement of 100,000 miles of combined sewers, so the Government have it absolutely right with increasingly onerous targets for Ofwat backed by unlimited fines, and £56 billion of infrastructure investment year after year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that to pretend that we can call for an immediate ban does a huge disservice to the general public and takes them for fools?

    George Eustice

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important to take the right long-term decisions now on investment, monitoring and bringing prosecutions in order to ensure that the issue improves over the next 25 years and, indeed, that it improves significantly between now and 2025; that is exactly what our plan sets out.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I thank the Secretary of State for his answers. He has mentioned on three occasions the need for the devolved Administrations to play their part. Sewage impacts on all the seas around the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Taking into consideration the fact that 7 million tonnes of raw sewage are pumped into Northern Ireland’s seas and waters, and more than £1.5 billion of investment is needed to repair that situation, does the right hon. Member agree that there must be a holistic approach to tackling sewage pollution across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

    George Eustice

    As I said, responsibility for water quality is devolved, but of course we work closely with all the devolved Administrations. DEFRA will share all the policy thinking, work and analysis that we have done in respect of England with any devolved Administration who would find it useful.

    Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)

    There are two pollution warnings on our beautiful beaches of Southend West today, because of the use of storm overflows. I welcome all the work that the Government are doing and their plans to reduce the problem, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the payments of dividends and capital buy-backs must be directly linked to Anglian Water’s performance in preventing sewage discharges in my constituency?

    George Eustice

    Yes, I agree that dividend payments should be linked to compliance with permits and environmental performance, and we have taken the powers in the Environment Act to ensure that that happens.

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

    Last question—the prize for perseverance and persistence goes to Anthony Browne.

    Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)

    The discharge of sewage into waterways, including the beautiful chalk streams of South Cambridgeshire, is clearly completely unacceptable, which is why I welcome the package of measures the Secretary of State talked about earlier finally to tackle the problem. Enforcement is a lot more effective if we hit owners and senior executives where it hurts most: in their pockets. That is why I welcome the fact that, as the Secretary of State has mentioned, including in response to the previous question, Ofwat is consulting on linking dividend payments to environmental performance. Does he also agree that the Government should consider going further and banning water companies that are fined for illegally dumping pollution from paying any bonus to their senior management team or dividends to their owners for one year? When bankers break the law, they lose their bonuses. Should not the same happen to water company executives?

    George Eustice

    As I said, Ofwat is consulting on a package of measures, using the new powers that we have given it under the Environment Act. I am sure that it will study this urgent question carefully and take on board my hon. Friend’s policy proposal.

  • Amanda Solloway – 2022 Speech on the Telford Child Sexual Exploitation

    Amanda Solloway – 2022 Speech on the Telford Child Sexual Exploitation

    The speech made by Amanda Solloway, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the House of Commons on 5 September 2022.

    I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) for securing this incredibly important and moving debate. She has worked tirelessly on these issues. Her perseverance has helped to ensure that the report has been published and that the horrendous way in which more than 1,000 children in Telford were failed has been exposed. I am sure that hon. Members will join me in commending her efforts, alongside those of other hon. Members present who are driving change on behalf of victims in constituencies across the country, including my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley (Robbie Moore) and for Blackpool South (Scott Benton). I acknowledge the work of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) as well.

    The abuse suffered by the many victims in Telford is truly sickening. My thoughts are with them. As has been so shockingly detailed, children were failed over and over again by those who should have protected them. I pay tribute to the victims and survivors in Telford and to all those who have shared their experiences. They have suffered unthinkable ordeals. Sadly, we cannot undo what happened in the past, but what we can and must do is take every possible step to ensure that others are not let down as they were.

    The independent inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Telford has produced a thorough and measured assessment of how local services responded to child sexual exploitation as far back as the 1970s. I am grateful to the inquiry for its comprehensive and hard-hitting exposure of the scale of the failures in that response. The inquiry acknowledges that the frontline response of services in Telford has improved in recent years, and it is right that the 47 recommendations made for local frontline services in Telford have been accepted. The mode of offending and the failures of police and other services that are detailed in the report are all too familiar. Shocking though it is, the fact is that what happened in Telford has happened in many other places.

    Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)

    May I say how much I admire the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan)? She has really battled to get this inquiry, and I know she will keep on battling to get its recommendations imparted.

    I ask the Minister about two very specific things. First, I am very glad that pre-charge bail has come back into statute, but it has not really been implemented, which is really hampering ongoing investigations into perpetrators—not least because many have dual nationality, so we do not have the ability to take their passports away.

    The other thing is that we are very fortunate in Rotherham because we have the National Crime Agency, but as I realised only very recently, perpetrators who have been brought in for questioning have to come in voluntarily to be charged. I wonder whether the Minister could look into charging powers, particularly in these very challenging cases.

    Amanda Solloway

    I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. If I may, given our current situation, I will get back to her on that point.

    As the public rightly expect, there have been significant changes in how local authorities and the police safeguard children since the appalling abuse that took place in Rotherham, Oldham and elsewhere across the country was first exposed a decade ago. Recognition of child sexual exploitation has increased significantly in recent years, with individual police forces taking action to improve their responses. The National Police Chiefs’ Council’s lead on the issue, Deputy Chief Constable Ian Critchley, is working to drive up performance nationally. As with any issue relating to public protection and particularly the protection of children, the pursuit of improvement needs to be relentless. We are supporting the police in that effort through investment and thorough strategic impetus.

    We are already addressing, at a national level, many of the issues highlighted for the local frontline services in Telford. We are driving up data quality by funding child sexual abuse analysts in every policing region, as well as having made it mandatory since March for police forces to record the ethnicity of those arrested and held in custody because of their suspected involvement in grooming groups.

    In July, we published an updated version of our child exploitation disruption toolkit, which highlights the need for police and local agencies to work together to gather and scrutinise data so that they can identify and disrupt offending. In addition, we fund the vulnerability, knowledge and practice programme, which identifies best practice and shares it with all forces. We are ensuring that the complexity and sensitivities of child sexual abuse investigations are understood by policing leaders through the College of Policing’s training for senior officers on issues of safeguarding and public protection.

    We are taking steps forward all the time, but we must not lose sight of the fact that things went terribly wrong in the past. Complacency must never be allowed to set in. It has been made abundantly clear to the police that protecting children must always be a top priority. There should be absolutely no doubt that we will keep shining a light on these issues, and where shortcomings are identified, we will take action to address them. That is why Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services has been commissioned to investigate how police forces across England and Wales handle cases of group-based child sexual exploitation. Unlike reviews of historical issues, it will give an up-to-date picture of the quality and effectiveness of forces’ efforts to support victims and bring offenders to justice. We expect the inspection to report by the end of this year.

    The failings uncovered in Telford and elsewhere undoubtedly demand a swift and strong local response. The Government are ensuring those lessons are learned right across England and Wales through our strategic national approach. We are working across central and local government, law enforcement and the wider criminal justice system, and we continue to be recognised as a global leader in addressing the threat.

    Last year we published the “Tackling Child Sexual Abuse Strategy”, which highlights the vital importance of a joined-up approach and sets out firm commitments to drive action across every part of Government and across all agencies, including education, health, social care, industry, and civil society. More broadly, the “Beating Crime Plan” reaffirms our enduring determination to root out hidden harms and secure justice for victims in these cases. We are delivering on our commitments. We are putting victims and survivors at the centre of our approach, while relentlessly pursuing the perpetrators of these despicable crimes.

    Of course, it is not for the police alone to tackle child sexual exploitation and keep children safe from harm. All statutory partners must play their crucial roles. While the inspection into group-based child sexual exploitation is primarily a policing one, we want to include local authorities in the response. The events in Telford have highlighted the importance of an effective multi-agency response. Ensuring close collaboration between key partners is a key part of our strategy.

    The Children and Social Work Act 2017 introduced the most significant reforms in a generation, requiring local authorities, clinical commissioning groups and chief officers of police to form multi-agency safeguarding partnerships. All the new partnerships were in place by September 2019. The partnerships have been supported by a Home Office- funded police facilitator, who has engaged with every force in England and Wales to ensure they understand their new responsibilities and are making the most of this opportunity to improve outcomes for children and young people.

    In May we welcomed the publication of the independent review of children’s social care, and the national review of the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel. Both reviews make recommendations on improving multi-agency working to strengthen child protection, with a sharp focus on professional expertise.

    Victims and survivors have been failed in the past. That is utterly unacceptable. Through increased investment in specialised services, we are determined to ensure that victims and survivors get the help and support they need to rebuild their lives. Services protecting vulnerable children in Telford and Wrekin have been transformed since 2016, thanks to the work of committed social workers and senior leaders. They are now rated “outstanding” by Ofsted and are helping to bring about improvements in other underperforming local authorities to help to protect more families, as sector-led improvement partners.

    Nationally, services include the rape and sexual abuse support fund and funding for police and crime commissioners to locally commission vital emotional and practical support services. The support for victims and survivors of child sexual abuse fund also supports voluntary sector organisations to deliver a range of vital national services, such as support lines and counselling, to children, adult survivors and families affected by sexual abuse.

    It is also essential that we send a clear and unequivocal message to all victims and survivors that they should come forward and report abuse. All agencies involved in tackling these crimes have a role to play in making that happen. They must strive every day to secure the trust of victims and command the confidence of the wider public.

    Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)

    Will the Minister give way?

    Amanda Solloway

    The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) knows how much respect I have for her, but I will continue, if that is okay.

    Across the country, there are many amazing charities doing brilliant work to help victims to rebuild their lives. In my own constituency I have seen at first hand how the charity Safe and Sound transforms lives by providing one-to-one support to victims. I pay tribute to all involved with Safe and Sound and the work they do to support victims, and to other charities that do the same.

    In closing, I would like to thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate for reminding us who is at the heart of this for all of us. The abuse perpetrated in Telford was sickening. The failings that occurred were shocking. We owe it to the victims there and in every part of the country to ensure that nothing like that ever happens again.

  • Lucy Allan – 2022 Speech on the Telford Child Sexual Exploitation

    Lucy Allan – 2022 Speech on the Telford Child Sexual Exploitation

    The speech made by Lucy Allan, the Conservative MP for Telford, in the House of Commons on 5 September 2022.

    It is a privilege to have secured the first Adjournment debate after the summer recess, and I am grateful for this opportunity.

    The independent inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Telford reported on its findings on 12 July this year, at a time when Parliament was in some turmoil, so I am particularly grateful to now be able to put on record the findings of that important inquiry and the response of the authorities to those findings.

    This inquiry has relevance for every council and every police force, and it marks a turning point in the fight against CSE and the organisational culture and attitudes that for so long have allowed this horrendous crime to pass unnoticed. I am very glad that the Minister is on the Treasury Bench to hear and respond to the debate. I urge her and her officials to read the report, because this is a landmark inquiry and a turning point in this ongoing battle. The Telford inquiry is a testament to the victims and survivors and their families—to their determination and bravery—because it will improve safeguarding across the country, and there are many good people to thank for the role they played.

    The inquiry was chaired by Mr Tom Crowther QC. He makes it clear at the outset of his report that inquiries of this kind can drive change only if organisations that are subject to criticism accept the spirit in which the comments are made and view the findings in a way that is self-critical and reflective. It is not enough to say, “Well, this happened a long time ago” or “Our practices have substantially improved.” As Mr Crowther says in his report, in child welfare and safeguarding there is no place for corporate pride; there is no place for reflexive denial, deflection of blame or excessively optimistic statements.

    Tom Crowther conducted his work sensitively and thoroughly. His report is measured and balanced, his recommendations constructive and clear. He shows insight into the silence around CSE and the way that authorities, not just in Telford, too often respond when questioned. He tackles, too, the key issues of institutional blindness and complacency and the failure to take CSE seriously.

    It was back in the summer recess of 2016 when I first met with CSE campaigners, victims and survivors. I listened to their experiences and offered to help them secure this inquiry, which they felt would give them a voice and would mean that their experience was not just brushed aside and forgotten about so that people could move quietly on to other things. To them, it was an important part of their recovery. These meetings came after a high profile police investigation and successful prosecution known as Operation Chalice. A group of seven men in Telford were jailed for serious sexual offences against young girls, some as young as 13. It was apparent from the work of Operation Chalice that this was not a one-off, and that there were serious underlying problems.

    When something has gone wrong, it is understandable that any organisation will feel uncomfortable when practices and procedures are challenged and scrutinised and shortcomings are identified. However, child sexual exploitation is a horrendous crime that affects whole communities and damages young lives. No one in authority charged with responsibility for young people should shy away from improving practice when something has gone horribly wrong, and those that do embrace an inquiry such as this as if it were an opportunity—which, indeed, it is—are to be commended. That is why I welcomed the response of West Mercia police to the inquiry’s findings. Speaking on behalf of West Mercia police on the day the report was published, 12 July, Assistant Chief Constable Richard Cooper said:

    “I would like to say sorry. Sorry to the survivors and all those affected by child sexual exploitation in Telford…our actions fell far short of the help and protection you should have had from us, it was unacceptable, we let you down.”

    That acknowledgement that mistakes were made is exactly the right way to respond. It is the first step towards accepting that things went wrong. It also makes a huge difference to victims, and provides reassurance that culture and attitudes have changed and new ways of working can be adopted for the future.

    Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)

    The scale of the abuse suffered by young, vulnerable women in my hon. Friend’s constituency over a number of decades is truly shocking and repugnant, as are the failings on the part of the authorities to which she has alluded, going back years and years. In Telford, Rotherham, Rochdale, Huddersfield, Halifax and countless other places, those vulnerable young women were failed by the authorities because they were too politically correct to call out what was going on. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is high time we had a new approach to dealing with this abhorrent crime, and that all police forces should be required to prioritise its investigation?

    Lucy Allan

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making two important points: first that this happens throughout the country, and secondly that there is much more work to be done. He is also right to emphasise that the role of the police is vital. They can and should view the report by Tom Crowther—the Telford report—as a model to be followed, and note the way in which West Mercia police responded to its findings. That, too, can be a significant learning for many police forces throughout the country.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I commend the hon. Lady. It is hard to listen to stories such as this because they are so heart-rending and personal. I think we all accept that these issues are real for the hon. Lady and her constituency, but, as she has said, they are also real throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Every police force, every authority, every public body can learn from this report. Is it the hon. Lady’s hope that this report will be dispersed across the United Kingdom by the Minister, if that is at all possible, so that all of us, everywhere, can learn for the betterment of the children?

    Lucy Allan

    I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman—I call him my hon. Friend—who makes exactly the point that I would like the Minister to take away from today’s debate. There is so much learning in the Crowther report that could be disseminated throughout the country.

    In his report, Mr Crowther urges all stakeholders to commit to a reflective response, and refers specifically to Telford and Wrekin Council. He observes that the council has shown a reluctance to accept criticism, and goes on to say that its approach has been essentially defensive. He stresses that to foster a culture of openness and learning it is necessary to recognise and admit mistakes; but he found, instead, a long-standing culture of resistance to ever admitting that provision was imperfect. Disappointingly, that is what we saw when the council came to respond to this important report on its publication.

    In a very brief statement, which was issued on the date of publication and which no one put their name to, the council did not acknowledge or recognise that any mistakes had been made, and the press release claimed that the inquiry had in fact found that the council had made significant improvements and that, in any event, the council was already carrying out many of the recommendations. The press release did say that it was sorry for the pain and suffering of the victims, but it very specifically did not make any apology for or any mention of the mistakes the council had made. There was no acknowledgement that it could have done things differently and no suggestion that the council had a responsibility for what went wrong. There was repeated reference to the fact that child sexual exploitation was a problem that dates back many years—as long as 30 years in this case—as if to create some kind of distance between what had happened and the people responsible.

    Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)

    That is infuriating. We must never forget who is at the heart of this: it is the victims and their families who have had these traumatic experiences, and situations have been imposed on them for many years. The report referred to institutional blindness as a key point. Does my hon. Friend share my frustration? In order for us to reinstall trust in those organisations that have failed many of our constituents for a long time, we have to get those authorities to recognise and realise where mistakes have been made. That is why I am frustrated at the council’s response. Does she agree that in order to get to the position of being able to reinstall that trust, we must get our local authorities, including Bradford Council in my constituency, to trigger an inquiry to get to the bottom of the issues to do with child sexual exploitation that have been going on in Keighley and my constituency?

    Lucy Allan

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right that it is essential that councils not only acknowledge but know what has gone wrong. This happens in lots of institutions, not just councils. Too often it is easy for them to say, “Nothing happened here really,” and to see it through their own eyes rather than view the reality through the eyes of an outsider or, indeed, the victim. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the suffering of victims. I do not think that any one of us who has ever spoken to a victim will forget what they have told us. It is an extraordinarily hideous crime—its deviousness, its manipulation and its way of making people do something they do not want to do without even realising that it is happening. It is the most hideous of crimes. I recognise how difficult it is to identify it, but that means that it is all the more important that inquiries such as this happen. It is such a healthy exercise to actually look at what has gone on, examine responses and challenge oneself. It is very difficult to do that on the inside. I think that having an outside, independent person asking these questions in the same balanced, measured and blame-free way as Tom Crowther is vital, and there is scope for many more such learning opportunities in many other areas.

    The response of Telford and Wrekin Council was not just a missed opportunity to learn lessons or reassure the community that it knew that things had gone wrong, but a clear indication and evidence of the resistance, the reluctance to accept criticism, the defensiveness and the corporate pride that Mr Crowther references in the inquiry report. It is that same reluctance to be open about shortcomings that created roadblocks to the inquiry taking place in the first place. Although I would not expect any organisation to be enthusiastic about such an inquiry, the resistance to it in this case was clear for all to see.

    For two long years, the council gave various reasons why this inquiry was simply not necessary. First, it hid behind the national child abuse inquiry, which it claimed would cover Telford when it did not do so. Then, it said that it was going to cost too much, then that it had a good Ofsted report, and then that there was nothing to see anyway. When the council did finally agree to it, it took another year to appoint a chair, and when it did that, it produced 1.2 million pages of evidence for the inquiry to sift through. That shows that it was not taking seriously its duties to improve its procedures and practices, and that was extremely frustrating. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) mentioned being frustrated. Don’t block it, don’t stop it; just accept it as a learning opportunity and as an opportunity to do things better, because these are children and young people, and this is about lives being ruined. No one should stand in the way of making sure that best practice is in place.

    For me, most disheartening of all was the formal response to the inquiry by the leader of Telford and Wrekin Council. The report had said,

    “It is…the responsibility of the elected members, particularly the cabinet members, to give direction and to assert priorities; to determine what is essential and what may be foregone. I have seen…no indication that before 2016, a CSE response was ever regarded as an essential service. I consider that a glaring failure on the part of a generation of Telford’s politicians.”

    Having read that in black and white on the printed page, the council leader who joined the cabinet in 2011, far from accepting responsibility and being humble about the shortcomings, in his response talked defensively about how proud he was of Telford, as if there had been criticism of our town—of course, there had not. He talked about the significant improvements, despite the report saying that such progress as there had been was “unconscionably slow”, and he made repeated reference to the way that CSE dated back 30 years. He went on to say that he was only three years old at the time.

    CSE is not all in the past. CSE is not something that happened 30 years ago. Forgive my frustration, but we had the same approach—the same institutional denial—with the maternity death scandal at Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital. Before the Ockenden inquiry into maternity negligence, we saw the great and the good reassuring anyone who asked that there was nothing to see here, and that it was all in the past. But it was still happening at that very time, because there was a refusal to accept shortcomings or have any insight into the problems that the organisation faced.

    The leader of the council is the corporate parent, the person ultimately responsible for young people in our borough. Instead of saying, “Yes we got it wrong, yes we made

    mistakes, and yes people suffered as a consequence,” he says, “Well, I was only three years old at the time.”

    I am heartened that all stakeholders have committed to implementing all the findings of this important report, and it is my job as Telford’s MP, as the representative of victims and their families and all young people in Telford, to ensure that the recommendations are implemented, and to seek updates on their progress. We all know that it is the perpetrators who are to blame for horrific crimes. It is impossible, however, not to feel a deep sense of sadness and anger about the entrenched culture and attitudes that allowed CSE to go unchecked for so long. I invite the council to do as West Mercia police have done and acknowledge the shortcomings identified in the report, and apologise to victims, families and the community for those failings. I ask all stakeholders in Telford and Wrekin to work together with our community to implement all the inquiry’s recommendations promptly.

    I thank Mr Crowther for his excellent work and steadfast determination to get the job done, and all the victims who have worked with me on this issue and who were able to give their evidence to the inquiry. I hope that CSE victims and survivors in Telford and elsewhere feel confident that they are now being taken seriously and together have shone a light on this issue, and that no one anywhere will be complacent about CSE in the future. I know that the Minister will confirm that in her response.

    I want to take this chance to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), who at the time we were battling for this inquiry was the local government Minister. Without his help, I wonder whether the inquiry would ever have taken place. I am very grateful to him.

    I doubt any of us would have been able to speak out on this issue but for the pioneering work of the inspirational hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). It was her support that enabled me to keep going to make this inquiry happen, and I commend her on her bravery on holding those responsible to account. It is not an easy job, as I can now say from experience.

    I am privileged to be Telford’s MP and to have the platform to speak up for victims. I am grateful that other hon. Members have taken the same opportunity. Together, slowly and bit by bit, standing on the shoulders of those who have gone before us, we will make change really happen.